(We) can do better

Why conservation efforts will not survive mass immigration

Mon, 2007-09-24 01:01 by tim

On Friday September 7, 2007, the venerable Canadian environmental author Farley Mowat made a boldly generous but stunningly futile gesture. He donated 200 acres of his Cape Breton land to "Nova Scotia Nature Trust". He called on others in the province to follow his example so that good land wouldn't fall into some developer's clutches and be destroyed for profit "like every other part of the western world." But while Mowat's motives are beyond dispute and his affinity for wildlife unquestioned, he continues to evidence no understanding of the root causes of biodiversity loss. In North America it is runaway population growth, fuelled largely by mass immigration and coupled with excessive consumption that is crowding out wildlife habitat, wetlands and farmland. The question to be put to the environmental movement is, can nature preserves, greenbelts and national parks permanently shield wildlife and flora from the developmental pressures issuing from this growth? Ontario commentator Brishen Hoff answers with a categorical "no". "History has proven that no lands are protected when the population surrounding them is growing. This applies to countries, national parks, islands, or whatever. Once growing populations that surround pristine areas reach a tipping point, the demand for the resources of the protected area will become so great that all safeguards, laws, or barricades will be obliterated and the resources will be exploited." That is why Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado established as his Fundamental Law of Planning that a workable, durable local plan cannot be effected in a community until the regional population is stabilized. Curiously, advocates of secure borders and more restrictive immigration have been reproached and ridiculed by soft greens and mainstream environmental NGOs for proposing the equivalent of an international "gated community" that couldn't hope, they allege, to fend off the heavy global traffic of people in the real world. Yet none of these critics will acknowledge that their little fortresses---their nature preserves, their greenbelts, their parks, their strict land-use zonings---have little hope of standing up to the pressure of the growing populations we have recently seen. Growth spilled out of the urban boundaries of Portland, Oregon---poster child of "smart growth"---into surrounding farmland. And with no let-up from immigration houses are being built on formerly sacrosanct British greenbelts, the "lungs" of Britain. And as long as economic growth is God, conservation lands are not secure either. They can and have been withdrawn by legislation and executive order. At one time an Act of Congress removed 1400 square kilometers of the original Yosemite National Park for timber and mineral production. "Wildlife habitat will continue to be lost as natural capital is relocated form the economy of nature to the human economy", until the economy shifts to a kind of steady-state model, writes Professor Brian Czech of Virginia Polytechnic Institute Oddly, there is virtually no environmental organization in Canada that makes a connection between immigration and environmental degradation of any kind. Not the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation, Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Canadian Parks and Wilderness, Ontario Nature---the list goes on. None of them speak of a connection. Quite the contrary. The problem is not whether we grow, so the mantra goes, but how we grow. If we grow "smart", we can welcome the whole world here. And the biggest Welcome Wagon in Canada is the leader of its Green Party, Elizabeth May, who argues for an immigration level even higher than that supported by her rivals. She calls this "Canada's Great Multicultural Project". May parrots those two sweet-sounding buzzwords that many environmental organizations use so frequently---"cultural diversity". But cultural diversity in Canada and the United States cannot be sustained without massive and fresh injections of newcomers to bolster existing immigrants who otherwise would assimilate. Viable multiculturalism requires unrelenting mass immigration. And mass immigration marginalizes wildlife habitat. Cultural diversity therefore comes at the cost of biological diversity. So let's dispense with the cant. The correlation is clear. Growing cities, vanishing wildlife, dial "1" for English. One final irony, who was the man who spear-headed the national fund-raising campaign this summer to raise campaign donations for Green Party leader Elizabeth May? None other than Farley Mowat, the man who wants to protect animals, birds, and plant life from human encroachment. It was Mowat who once famously compared our species to yeast in a vat, "mindlessly multiplying as we greedily devour a finite world." But apparently Canada's not finite, or at least that portion of it beyond the safe bosom of a conservation charity. To think that Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who dueled with Elizabeth May over the immigration issue when she was president of Sierra Club Canada, named his newest ship, "The Farley Mowat" That makes two contradictions.

Topic:

No population explosion in a classless society?

Sat, 2007-09-22 16:53 by tim

History records that Karl Marx had a fierce disregard for Thomas Malthus and his theory. Blaming the poor for their poverty was just not on for the socialist revolutionary from Trier, Germany. The system---capitalism---was to blame for everything. Dump capitalism, institute socialism, and people will presumably stop bonking. For Frederick Engels, socialism was like salt peter, it alone "makes possible that moral restraint of the propagative instinct which Malthus himself presents as the most effective and easiest remedy for over-population."

This attitude still can be found in contemporary Marxist literature. Joel Kovel, for example, in the introduction to his book The Enemy of Nature, anticipated that critics would fault him for not giving sufficient weight to questions of population growth. He made no apologies. "At no point (in the book) does overpopulation appear among the chief candidates for the mantle of prime or efficient cause of the ecological crisis.I see it as a secondary dynamic-not secondary in importance, but in the sense of being determined by other features of the system. I remain a deeply committed adversary to the recurrent neo-Malthusianism that holds that if only the lower classes would stop their wanton breeding, all will be well; and I hold that human beings have ample power to regulate population so long as they have power over the terms of their social existence. To me, giving people that power is the main point, for which purpose we need a world where there are no more lower classes, and where all people are in control of their lives."

The problem Joel, is that while we are waiting for your utopia to arrive, the world is adding 80 million people a year. We have to try to do something to stop that now.

And by the way, what was the socialist track-record in halting population growth in the third world, when "the people" were control of their lives (but apparently not of their hormones)? How did they do in Kenya, Tanzania, and Egypt under Nasser. How are they doing under the Marxist Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Why after trying their "classless" society did the Communist Chinese government find it necessary to institute a one-child policy?

Marxists still, after 150 years, engage in the fantasy that our species need obey no limits, that abundance is at hand if the world is rationally and democratically organized under "worker's control". "Malthus was right in asserting that there is always a surplus population; that there are always too many people in the world; he is wrong only when he asserts that there are more people on hand than can be maintained from the available means of subsistence."

Engels made that statement more than a century ago, before Peak Oil. Modern Marxists have no such excuse.

The second to last word goes to my comrade, Chairman Albert Bartlett:

"Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum to food."

The last word is mine, a corollary of the above:

"Oil depletion. The ultimate contraceptive."

Topic:

Time, money and patience wasted by incompatible computers, printers and software

Thu, 2007-09-20 10:53 by James Sinnamon

A friend asked me to post the following on her behalf. It was pompted by her won frustration at havng wasted hundreds of dollars adn days of time attermpting to get a printer to work with her Intel-based computer running a Microsoft XP. - James Sinnamon.

I am so sick of buying printers. Each new series has more bugs and expenses than the last. Every time Windows comes out with new software or I upgrade my computer I run into problems. At the moment my HP Photosmart 3100 series refuses to print all black, despite a brand new cartridge (ridiculously expensive and small) until I replace the magenta cartridge. My friend, who uses Linux, has an ancient little printer which prints without special programs, without fuss, without self cleaning... it just does the job. It can be filled with generic inks and the cartriges manually refilled. It does not waste my time. HP Photosmart 3100 series WASTES my time. I hate it. I resent the several hundred AUD I spent on it. And I have another printer - a Canon laser. It simply refused to collaborate with my new computer. So now that my HP Photosmart 3100 series is holding me to ransome (and another member of the family has a car so I can't go down and blow some more money on a magenta cartridge in order to print in black and white) I tried printing with my other computer (you need a few; they are so damn jinxed by windows XP [I certainly won't be buying Vista]) using the Canon, but, wouldn't you know, there is a big blaze of white down the centre, so I will have to fill out the missing words in biro so I can take the article to read at my radio show. I think I may mention the problems with printers there. We customers are simply being hung out to dry by big business which is commercially all in league to herd us to less and less useful, more and more complex, resource intensive 'solutions'. I guess it keeps us out of politics a little more than we otherwise might be.

Topic:

Greens call for scrapping of second Brisbane Airport runway

Thu, 2007-09-20 01:02 by James Sinnamon

Queensland Greens Media Release - 19 September 2007

The second runway at Brisbane airport should be scrapped and government should instead be promoting a reduction in air travel, said Australian Greens lead Senate candidate for Queensland, Larissa Waters today.

"Air travel is the most greenhouse gas intensive form of transport.

"A second runway would enable yet more increase in emissions, at a time when scientists warn we need to stabilise emissions or the Great Barrier Reef will die and our farmers will suffer.

"The federal government's approval of the runway and the Opposition?s silence on the climate change implications are more sad proof that the old parties don?t understand what needs to be done to protect us all from the impacts of climate change.

"Instead of approving a new runway which will exacerbate climate change, disturb residents and impact on Moreton Bay, government should be encouraging people to avoid unnecessary air travel and use alternative means of transport or communication.

"Government should be promoting video conferencing and internet based communication like Skype to reduce air travel for business. They should investigate the feasibility of bullet trains from Brisbane to Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne to give people more sustainable travel alternatives. Local and regional tourism should be promoted," said Ms Waters.

For every 100kms of air travel, 18 kilograms of emissions are created. Australian Greenhouse Office figures show that greenhouse gas emissions from domestic air travel have increased 65% since 1990, creating an additional 1.9 megatonnes of emissions.

For more information contact:
Larissa Waters
0421 844 280
larissa.waters|AT|qld.greens.org.au

Australia's Nursing Crisis and "WorkChoices"

Wed, 2007-09-19 15:43 by James Sinnamon

The following article was sent to me by a nurse who currenlty practices in rural Victoria. - James Sinnamon

Across Australia and indeed, the World, the nursing system is in crisis. Around the Globe, there remains a chronic shortage of nurses. This shortage is caused by many factors including cost cutting measures, lack of educational opportunities in universities and collages, diminished opportunity for advancement and the low pay rates of nurses compared to other professions.

On top of the above, the Australian nursing workforce is currently experiencing an attack of unprecedented proportions from the Federal Government in the form of "Workchoices". The effects of Workchoices have been felt most immediately in the private nursing sector where nurses have been sacked for "operational reasons" which is perfectly legal under Workchoices and been replaced with lower paid Personal Care Attendants (PCA's) and Assistants in Nursing (AIN's). To add insult to injury, some Division 2 nurses in Victoria (EN's in other States) have been dismissed from their roles in aged care facilities for operational reasons, only to be asked to resume work as lower paid AIN's or PCA's, a move that has infuriated effected nurses and their colleagues. This situation could not have happened prior to the introduction of Workchoices. Howard's life long desire to attack ordinary people doing extraordinary jobs has finally been achieved.

One of the saddest aspects of the above situation is that those Division 2 nurses have paid their own way through a course that was meant to set them up for life and now find themselves in a precarious position in that should they decide to take up positions as AIN's or PCA's, but chose to keep their Div. 2 registration, they're actually working outside of regulatory guidelines and can be penalized as a result. They are now left with three choices:

Update their qualifications, once again at their own expense,
apply to be de-registered by the Nurses Board of Victoria,
or to continue to work in full knowledge that they are working outside of their "scope of practice".

Those who choose the latter are leaving themselves open to serious consequences, but some may be tempted to do so hoping that they might obtain work in another facility where their current registration will be required.

Those who choose to become de-registered or let their registration lapse will become a disillusioned group of workers affected by despondency and low moral. Many will simply leave the system altogether causing further shortages, particularly in the area of aged care.

Those who choose to update their qualifications will face the prospect of competition against young school leavers for limited university places since many of these displaced nurses are in an older age bracket. Being "mature aged" often means juggling household responsibilities with the demands of education should they be fortunate enough to obtain a place in a Bachelor of Nursing university course. Some find this an impossible situation and become those amongst the statistics of early "drop-out." Added to this is the cost of a university placing. In Victoria, the figure to complete the Bachelor of Nursing course is around $12,000, not including certain necessary books, most of which come at a high price due to their specialty and low volume sales.

However, should one of these affected nurses find sufficient drive to complete the course, the newly registered nurses now finds themselves up against Howard's abominable "Workchoices."

Under "WorkChoices", power is given largely to employers and whilst it can be said that these new laws don't appear to be affecting the greater percentage of the working population at present, we have to remember that Australia is currently experiencing a period of unprecedented prosperity, due largely to current Government practices which have turned our beautiful country into a giant quarry in it's bid to cash in on the Worldwide rush to embrace unsustainable economic growth. History will repeat and just like the size of a balloon, the bigger this economic bubble is allowed to grow, the bigger the bang when the bubble is finally pricked. That's when Howard's Workchoices will do their most damage. Then, all the rhetoric of Government and big business advertising will be shown up for what it is, one huge lie! A company will be allowed to take the easy way out and sack unwanted workers, even those who command top positions will be vulnerable. So too with nurses! After the bubble bursts, it will simply be a matter of time before hospitals and nursing homes use the power of Workchoices to further downsize their nursing workforce in order to prop up their profits whilst adding further to the nursing crisis.

This will be a terrible shame because most people don't become nurses for the money, especially in the private sector where nurses receive on average $250 a week less than their counterparts in other areas. Also, nursing wages fall far below that of someone driving a truck in a mine, or doing shift work in many factories. Even in the public system, the average wage of a Div.2 nurse can be just $19.75 an hour (permanent position) which is little better than the Governments own minimum allowable rate of approximately $16.25 an hour. A Div.1 nurse fares little better considering all the study undertaken to achieve this professional status, not to mention the added cost of education.

I haven't always been a Labor voter and until recently was deceived into believing the rhetoric and outright lies of the Coalition when they say "they" are the "better economic managers." If you repeat a lie often enough not only will you believe it yourself, but others that hear it often enough will believe it too. This has been the legacy of the Howard led Government. A litany of supplications has been pervading the Australian political landscape since the Howard Government came to power in 1996. I strongly urge Australian voters to put an end to the lies and secrete mandates of the Howard Government at the coming elections. Put an end to the reign of a man who conceals lies with "core" and "non-core" promises.

As for the nursing profession, should the Coalition again win another three years in power, I'm quite certain that in the not too distant future, many Liberal voters will come to wonder just why, when they push the call button from their hospital or nursing home bed, no nurse comes to their aid, for should the Coalition retain power at the 2007 elections, nursing will be a good profession to avoid or to escape from. Whilst the nursing profession currently thinks more about patient care than the comparatively low financial rewards involved, there will come a breaking point when nurses will leave the profession in droves, never to return.

Liberal Party succession issue irrelevant

Sat, 2007-09-15 14:05 by James Sinnamon

The letter below was printed with some alterations (see further below) in Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper of Saturday 15 September - James Sinnamon

Original letter

Like every thinking compassionate person in this country I desperately want to see the end of both Howard and Costello, but I am dismayed to have learnt that the Federal Labor Party is, yet again, poised to pour millions of their hard-earned advertising dollars in an attempt to, once again, focus voter attention on the Liberal Party leadership succession issue ("Costello and Howard side by side", 14 Sep). This strategy has been employed twice before and has failed twice before.

Logically, at some point, John Howard must make way to a successor. If the Labor Party objects to the timing and method, then perhaps it should suggest a better time and a better method.

The fact that key Labor strategists see this non-issue, rather than global warming, 'WorkChoices", the AWB scandal, the Iraq War, privatisation and almost innumerable other examples of Howard's and Costello's misgovernment, as the key to victory, suggests to me that the Labor Party urgently needs to find new election strategists.

Published letter

Like most compassionate people in this country I desperately want to see the end of both Howard and Costello, but I am dismayed to have learnt that the Federal Labor Party is, yet again, poised to pour millions of their hard-earned advertising dollars in an attempt to, once again, focus voter attention on the Liberal Party leadership succession issue ("Costello and Howard side by side", 14 Sep).

This strategy has been employed twice before and has failed twice before.

Logically, at some point, John Howard must make way to a successor.

Topic:

Throw Howard Out

Home dream waning

Sat, 2007-09-15 02:02 by James Sinnamon

The article below was published in the Whyndam Leader newpaper of 3 September 2007.

ONE in four Wyndham home owners is struggling to cover mortgage repayments every month.

Australian Bureau of Statistics census data for the federal seat of Lalor, which includes Wyndham, have revealed a staggering increase in the number of households experiencing mortgage stress: those who are paying more than 30 per cent of their gross income in repayments.

All up, 6242 or 27.8 per cent of Lalor households with a mortgage are struggling with their monthly repayments in 2006 an increase of 147.8 per cent since 2001.

Quarterly national figures released by the Housing Industry Association have revealed housing affordability has substantially decreased across Australia within the past 12 months.

The housing affordability index dropped 2.7 per cent in the June quarter 6.5 per cent lower than the same time last year.

Monthly loan repayments on a typical first-home mortgage increased from $2387 to $2506.
Mortgage repayments now account for 30.8 per cent of an average first-homebuyer's income a 0.8 per centrise on the previous quarter.

"The Australian economy is performing well, yet an increasing number of people are being left behind as the degree of housing stress on both mortgage holders and renters continued to intensify," HIA managing director Dr Ron Silberg said.

He said affordability was continuing to move in the wrong direction, but there had been no meaningful response from the Federal Government to address the issue.
Federal member for Lalor Julia Gillard criticised the Federal Government's refusal to appoint a minister to tackle housing affordability.
"With so many Wyndham residents losing sight of the great Australian dream, it's shameful that housing is a policy-free zone for the Government," Ms Gillard said.
The Lalor MP said eight consecutive interest rate rises had only exacerbated the problem.
But Sustainable Population Australia Victorian branch vice-president and population and land-use planning sociologist Sheila Newman said Victoria was experiencing a land affordability crisis, rather than a crises in housing affordability.

"The planning system has been tweaked and turbo-charged by the State Government's Melbourne 2030 to drive up demand for land through government-stimulated population growth.

"Victorians were neither adequately informed nor consulted about M2030. The underlying assumption of M2030 is that growth was inevitable, rather than a political decision.

"The politics and policies of engineering growth remained outside the discussion and slow or no growth were not presented as options."

Ms Newman said that by implication of this policy, a socially marginalised class of people had been created in the outer suburbs of Melbourne where they were vulnerable to interest rate hikes and volatile petrol prices.

"Can Australia continue to pay the environmental, affordability and livability consequences for this kind of dog-eat-dog economic?"

Western Metropolitan state Liberal MP Bernie Finn said exorbitant stamp duty was an impost on home buyers and urged the State Government to cut the tax. "Stamp duty adds to the mortgage woes of people who go to the banks with their cap in hand to borrow money," he said. "It is a pure tax grab by the Brumby Government. They should slash this tax on private ownership."

Friends of Noosa's "Dump Labor" campaign punishes the wrong people

Thu, 2007-09-13 15:40 by James Sinnamon

The following letter was posted to the Noosa Journal on 9 Septermber but was not published in the following edition of Sunday 13 September. Two other letters from local residents which had very loosely similar content were printed. These are included below. It is my own view that, because of the very important lessons from recent history which my letter attempted to convey to the residents of Noosa fighting the Queensland state Government's forced amalgamations, that the letters editor of the Noosa Journal should have found some way to include my letter.

Dear editor,

If the leaders of the "Friends of Noosa" coalition had learnt anything from recent history, they would understand that their "Dump Labor" campaign ("It's war on Labor", 6 Sep), aimed at the Federal Labor Party, which has opposed
forced amalgamations from the outset and has fully supported John Howard's legislation to allow Queenslanders to express their views on this issue at the ballot box, will have almost the precise opposite effect to that intended.

In 2003, the then Victorian Labor Premier Steve Bracks broke an election promise of 2002 to build the Scoresby Freeway, instead building the Eastlink tollway in partnership with a private consortium.

Mark Latham, leader of the Federal Labor Party at the time, recognised the threat that the justifed backlash by Victorian voters posed to Federal Labor's election prospects and urged Bracks, at a meeting in 2004, to change that decision.

Bracks refused.

It is a matter of record that Federal Labor paid the price at the 2004 polls for Bracks' actions, whilst Bracks, himself, was re-elected in 2006 as a consequence of voter revulsion against "WorkChoices" and other policies of the same Howard Government that he had helped to get re-elected.

Of course, it could be argued that Kevin Rudd should be more outspoken on this issue. Nevertheless, the leaders of the "Save Noosa" coalition are punishing the wrong people.

I urge them to cease forthwith their campaign against Federal Labor and, in particular, to remove their "Save Noosa - Dump Labor" hoarding which is now prominently displayed on the northern Bruce Highway approach to Brisbane. Instead, they should focus their energies on encouraging a high turnout to the planned plebiscite on amalgamations and on demanding that the Premier and his local Government Minister Andrew Fraser respect its outcome.

They should not assume that city-dwelling Labor voters are necessarily their enemies.

James Sinnamon

War on Labor a bridge too far

Like many others, I am appalled by Peter Beattie's forced amalgamation of our local council.

However, I feel extremely uneasy when I see a front page image representing a fellow human being - no matter what their failings - dumped into a rubbish bin while people stand around applauding (The Noosa Journal, September 6).

Blaming, scapegoating and declaring war on an enemy group may feel like a good way to vent frustrations, but history shows us that politically motivated polarisation rarely resolves problems. More often (especially when carried to extremes) it contributes tohuman suffering.

Personally, I can't see how "declaring war" on Labor - or for that matter declaring war on anyone - is going to fix the amalgamation mess. Aren't there enough wars on the planet already?

Humanity has a proud history of fighting against injustice. Let's not confuse that history with the phoney heroics of those (on all sides) whose self-serving political agendas make them willing to exploit an issue for electioneering purposes.

After all, who is to say a State Liberal government wouldn't have forced amalgamation? They did it in Victoria, despite massive protest.

Beach protest was simply shocking

I am a member of the silent majority and a normal, ratepaying citizen of Noosa, concerned as everyone regarding its future. However, I was disgusted with the behaviour depicted on the front page of your September 6 edition.

The antics of destroying effigies of people is more in line with the frenzied endeavours of a mob on the streets of Mumbai, not the streets of Noosa.

It has become blatantly obvious that the so-called Friends of Noosa - and I use the term with scepticism - are being led around by the nose and manipulated by people with their own agenda.

I recently heard Glen Elmes speak at a function and was impressed by his knowledge and enthusiasm. It would be most disappointing to learn that he condoned this disgrace against his contemporaries, albeit from the opposite
side of the political spectrum.

Topic:

Greens and Douglas Shire Mayor to talk on fighting amalgamations

Thu, 2007-09-13 14:18 by James Sinnamon

Queensland Greens Media Release - 13 September 2007

Australian Greens lead Senate candidate for Queensland Larissa Waters will today meet Douglas Shire Council Mayor Mike Berwick to discuss how the Greens can help to overturn the decision to amalgamate local Councils.

"The Greens strongly oppose the forced amalgamations of Queensland Councils and the hubris of Peter Beattie in gagging local Councils from conducting polls of their residents on amalgamations," Ms Waters said.

"Political pressure from determined Queenslanders forced Peter Beattie to back down on prohibiting polls, and soon the Australian Electoral Commission will be empowered to conduct polls on the amalgamations, on a date to be determined.

"I call on Premier Anna Bligh to listen to the results of all polls held on amalgamations, and to reverse the decision to amalgamate if the majority of the area?s residents do not want it.

"This is democracy at its most basic level and will be a real test of the style of leadership we can expect from Anna Bligh.

"Queenslanders were outraged by the gradual erosion of their participation rights under Peter Beattie ? from restrictions on accessing information under FOI, to special legislation to fast track projects without community consultation, to the final straw of not having a say on amalgamations.

"It's time for people to regain confidence in our system of government by knowing that their rights to speak out are protected, and that their voice will be heard. Voters don?t elect people to silence and ignore them, but to represent them," concluded Ms Waters.

Like Noosa Mayor Bob Abbott, Douglas Shire Mayor Mike Berwick has strongly opposed the opposed the amalgamation of Douglas Shire with Cairns City Council, which does not share Douglas Shire?s strong environmental protections.

Queensland Parliament passed legislation on 9 August 2007 to adopt the amalgamations recommended by the Local Government Reform Commission. Legislative amendments in Queensland Parliament would be required to overturn the Council amalgamations.

Premier Bligh has Labor's numbers in the Queensland Parliament to pass any such amendment and could easily do so before the new boundaries come into effect after the 15 March 2008 local government elections.

For more information contact:
Larissa Waters
0421 844 280
larissa.waters|AT|qld.greens.org.au

Our Brave Redland Shire Council and their Quest!

Sun, 2007-09-09 15:27 by luke

Dear Sir's and Madame's,

The date is the 4th of Sept 2007 the time 10am, the place Redland Shire Council Chambers. The Agenda, extended working hours at the (yet to be built) Golden Cockerel Boning Factory in Mt Cotton Village from the approved 12 hrs to 17 hrs per day.

The Story so Far ...

In June 2007 our gallant 'Seccombe Six', voted 6/5 against strong opposition from Residents of Redland Shire and the other Limp Wristed 5 Councillors who had gathered at the round table, to approve a Boning Factory in the Village. Although the Proposed Factory is only 100 metres from Residents Homes and is in the Koala Coast Area, protected under the Nature Conservation (Koala) Plan 2006, their resolve did not waver. Despite the intense pressure to yield, our Six Brave Stalwarts of Industry voted in Favour of Golden Cockerel building its Factory in the Village with working hours of 6am - 6pm. 12hrs a day 6 days a week.

But wait... this is not the end of the Story ...

Golden Cockerel goes back to Council and asks for an extension to the working hours, 3am-10pm 19hrs a day they cry. They are concerned that the Company cannot make enough profit in 12hr days, six days a week. If the People want cheap Chickens, then that is the price Residents of Mt Cotton must pay for the benefit of us all, and Rightly So! I don't want to pay more for my chicken! Who does?

On the 21st of August 2007, after listening to the Village Residents concerns about losing sleep, and the Tree Hugging Koala Lovers, claiming that more Wildlife would perish because they move around from Dusk to Dawn. Shock! Horror! The Councilors rejected the bid 7-4?. I could see the price of chickens going up!

Damn the Residents and Damn those Greenies!! It was one of the worst days of my life!

But wait? all is not lost! A Shining Sword rose out of the Lake of Despair in the form of Cr Peter Dowling. This Brave Knight of Redlands Industry lodged a Rescind Motion for Development reassessment to be held at RSC on Tue 4th Sept 2007.

My Heart raced, I could see the price of chicken coming down before my eyes. What was his cunning plan of attack and could he snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?

A short time passes and we find our Brave Warriors back at the Round Table

The scene is set. The Public Gallery is full of Greenies and Concerned Residents; some even brought their children in the belief that the Councilors cared enough to give a Sympathy Vote.

One by one the Troublesome Voters came forward stating their well informed opinions. Factories should be built in Industrial Estates not Conservation areas they said. Whining about minor issues. Whining about the loss of Bushland, Koalas, wildlife, and local amenity. The Residents case was strong. They were passionate about their rural paradise, and some even believed that their elected representatives would support them. One Resident of the Village Addressed the Council waving a petition which carried over 1000 names protesting against the longer operation hours.

I nearly burst out laughing, didn't he know our Council gives Petitions the short shrift?

I was getting hungry and hoping that all these mere constituents would not cause our Brave Crusaders will to falter. Perhaps I should leave now and buy some chicken before the price goes up! If one was a cynic he could believe that this had been a pre-planned coup.

The Applicant had reduced the working hours request to a 5am-10pm - a mere 17hrs a day 6 six days a week. That was a Coup-de-Grace two Councilors needed to change their previous vote, Cr Karen Williams and Cr Alan Beard jumped ship. So once again our Gallant and Courageous 'Seccombe six' triumphed and the day was won. (I am sure that Cr Williams securing Golden Cockerel as a Major Supporter to the Redlands Spring Festival to which she is the Chair had no effect on her stance.)

The Moral... If I can use that term in such esteemed company?

If you want cheap chicken, then Factories need to be built near Residential estates. Flora and Fauna need to be dispensed with. Koalas must die and be injured. Residents need to suffer Noise and discomfort 17 hrs a day.
Industry before Conservation or Community, the message is clear.

Me. I salute Our Brave Councilors.

It takes a lot of courage to keep voting for Obnoxious and Inappropriate Developments to benefit all the Redlands Residents, (not to mention the Captains of Industry).

Recent Approved Applications include:

401 Redland Bay Rd.
Biomass Plant
Golden Cockerel Boning Plant Mt Cotton
Longer Operating Hours for Boning Plant.

Let's hope they have the Guts to approve the Super Quarry.. Go the 'Seccombe Six', charge across this mighty shire upon the back of development!

I propose that we have a Redlands Hall of Fame and I nominate the following six Councilors that, so far, seem to always vote Pro Development:

Perhaps they could replace the Koala and Bay on our Council Logo.

Yes, we can all sleep soundly tonight in the knowledge that Chickens are not the only things going cheap in Mt Cotton!

Luke Daglish
Cornubia QLD
ph 07 3829 9306
lukey1740|AT|hotmail.com

Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia

Fri, 2007-09-07 13:37 by James Sinnamon

Cate Molloy exposes amalgamation scam - media release, 7 Sep 07

Cate Molloy, the former Member for Noosa, today claimed Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's promise to introduce iconic legislation to protect Noosa was nothing more than a scam. Ms Molloy also claimed that Beattie had "hoodwinked" the people of Noosa.

"Claims by many Noosa notables and others that we have had some sort of victory due to our strong protests are very sadly wrong," said Cate Molloy.

"Premier Beattie and even possibly some in our midst have again hoodwinked and deceived the anti-amalgamation movement and the people of Noosa," she said.

"The facts about so-called iconic legislation are this," said Cate Molloy.

"In August and September 2004, Desley Boyle, then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, wrote to me stating the Government did not intend changing council boundaries unless councils requested them to do so," Ms Molloy said.

"However, the Minister also urged me to consider 'what great sense amalgamation would make,' and said specific processes could be put in place to "protect Noosa" and - wait for it, 'Bob (Abbott) could be the boss of them all, and you tell him that','" said Cate Molloy.

"While I rejected any involvement in this sinister plan and to my knowledge Bob knew nothing of it, anyone suggesting such "iconic" legislation was a response to our protest has been either sadly deceived by Beattie's spin doctors and even perhaps local players in Beattie's plan," Ms Molloy claimed.

"The reality is this," she said.

"Premier Beattie has long been lobbied by the powerful Property Council of Australia for access to the lucrative Noosa brand," said Cate.

"In 2004 it commissioned the Sunshine Coast Research Institute for Business Enterprise to prepare a pro-Amalgamation report, in conjunction with other industry representatives," said Cate Molloy.

"As a consequence, the Government's plan for the bludgeoning of the Noosa Council and the sweetener of iconic special treatment was already on the table in 2004, long before the Minister attempted to cajole me with simplistic and insulting platitudes," Cate Molloy claimed.

"I therefore make this appeal to all. Don't be further misled by Beattie and those in our midst white-anting the anti-amalgamation movement! We must focus on logic and the facts and reject those trying to make political and other mileage out of this affair," Cate Molloy said.

"It's clear Beattie has allowed the Property Council of Australia to get its way and Noosa shall suffer as a result. Amalgamation is just another act of bastardry by the Government and any of its calculating high-placed allies in our midst," Ms Molloy claimed.

Enquiries:
Cate Molloy,
Peregian Beach, Qld. 4573
07 54483248, 0408114729, 0407114729
Cate.molloy|AT|gmail.com

Beattie call for 50 million reflects vested interests

Wed, 2007-09-05 14:55 by James Sinnamon

Sustainable Population Australia Media Release, 5 Sep 2007

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's call yesterday for an Australian population of 50 million echoes those by vested interests of the housing, construction and real estate industries, according to Sustainable Population Australia inc (SPA).

National President of SPA, Dr John Coulter, says that this is not surprising given the very large donations that members of these groups make to political parties.

"But far more important than this distortion of democracy is the clear lack of any concern for the natural environment," says Dr Coulter.

"The most recent work by the Hadley Centre in the UK indicates that global temperatures are likely to rise sharply in the next few years as natural cycles augment the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Eastern and southeastern Australia will be prone to even worse 'droughts', water shortages and crop failures than experienced in the last few years," he says.

"The industries that Beattie and his fellow travelers in both major parties want to establish to support this larger population will all add to the severity of climate change and make Australia less able to support even its present population."

Dr Coulter claims that Beattie, Rudd, Howard and the political parties they represent are caught in a time-warp.

"Their push for ever more population and economic growth is a recipe from the 1960s. It ignores the reality that humanity and its economy depends on the natural environment. And the environment is telling us, loudly and clearly that this continual growth is no longer sustainable.

"Fifty million in Australia is not achievable. But the attempt to bring it about will progressively destroy any possibility of making Australia environmentally sustainable. Far from being leaders these people and their parties are strongly inhibiting the transition to a new and sustainable relationship with our supporting natural environment.

"Science is warning that we have little time left to respond. Beattie has shut his ears to the message," Dr Coulter concluded.

Further information: John Coulter 08 83882153

Cate Molloy calls for slow anti-amalgamation protest convoy to Brisbane

Wed, 2007-09-05 14:43 by James Sinnamon

Media Release, 5 Sep 2007

The Independent Candidate for Wide Bay and former Member for Noosa, Cate Molloy, today called on the Friends of Noosa and all others opposed to council amalgamation to undertake a mass protest action that will border on civil disobedience.

"I'm calling on all Sunshine Coast people who oppose amalgamation, including the Friends of Noosa, to join with me in undertaking a unique but very powerful protest that well and truly shake Peter Beattie," Cate Molloy said.

"I'm calling for a massed vehicle convoy to drive all the way together to parliament house at all times not exceeding the minimum legal speed," she said.

"It's not breaking the law, but just as Beattie intends on disrupting the lives of the people on the coast, such a protest convoy shall certainly disrupt normal traffic and transport all the way into Beattie's backyard," she said.

"It's time for very serious action. And this is one way we can make the Premier re-think his dictatorial actions," said Cate Molloy.

Enquiries:
Cate Molloy,
Peregian Beach, Qld. 4573
07 54483248, 0408114729, 0407114729

Australian group to halt aviation industry environmental destruction formed

Thu, 2007-08-30 13:39 by James Sinnamon

In a significant move to highlight the Australian Government's poor environmental performance, actions have taken place across Australia Sunday Evening Travel Agents selling dirt cheap holiday packages have been used as a target as representitives of the low-cost carriers bussines which is stimulating increasing demand on the environment with no consideration of the emissions produced by cheap, short-haul flights. Outside a number of Travel Agents accross Melbourne. Obstructions have been implemented and signs displayed to highlight aviations damage to the environment. Inspired by the very successful UK Climate Camp, the UK Group Plane Stupid are coming to Australia, citizens from Melbourne, Sydney and Newcastle are planning to take action against the careless aviation industry in the run up to the first Australian Climate Camp in the New Year.

Dan Glass, part of the Australian Plane Stupid Network said: "In recognition of the International governmental Panel on Climate Change studies, Aviation is the fastest growing cause of climate change and a major threat to the earth and everything on it. A growing number of Australian citizens are concerned about Australia's growing short-haul flight use, airport expansion and its negative attitude, undermining the Kyoto Protocol. Through these autonomous actions, concerned citizens are calling for airport expansion plans scrapped, a special greenhouse tax on aviation fuel and an end to short haul flights.

"The irony is that many of Australia's most popular tourist destinations, such as the Great Barrier Reef and its beaches, are at a risk from warmer temperatures and the prospect of more frequent and more severe storms. The insurance industry is already reassessing the risk to tourism businesses from climate change. "

The aviation industry has grown substantially since the 1950s and is expected to continue to expand rapidly. In Australia, between 1996 and 2005, domestic passenger numbers increased by 46 per cent and international passenger numbers by 62 per cent. Domestic and international air passenger numbers are expected to grow at 4.6 and 5.1 per cent per annum respectively between 2005 and 2020, ensuring a doubling of passenger numbers in 15 years. The success of the Australian airline industry is based on buoyant economic conditions. Government policy at the federal and state level is to encourage further expansion of the industry.

Government enthusiasm for the airline industry is increasingly at odds with the objectives of climate change policy. The evidence suggests global greenhouse gas emissions will have to be cut by between 60 and 90 per cent on 2000 levels by 2030 to avoid dangerous climate change. Australia and other developed countries will need to reduce their emissions by more than 90 per cent over this period.

The Australian government and opposition have both opposed proposed taxes on short-haul flights to deter negative effects on the tourism industry which is valued at $31.3 billion (3.9% of GDP) and currently accounts for 465,000 jobs (4.7% of total employment). Alternatives already exist and should be promoted, such as promoting more localised tourism and Very Fast Rail option to replace intercapital flights.

Plane Stupid is a coalition of airport residents and environmentalists who use direct action to stop the destruction of the environment and communities caused by airport expansion and aviation.

More information: www.planestupid.com
Contact: Dan Glass Australia|AT|planestupid.com 0408 59 6629 (After 9:45PM fill in)

Halt aviation industry expansion

We must bury 'economic competence' Big Lie or it will bury us

Wed, 2007-08-29 15:45 by James Sinnamon

The myth of the Howard Government's superior ability to manage the Australian economy may prove in this election as in the last to be the Achilles heel of an otherwise damning case against Howard. The indicators that purportedly confirm this myth are incessantly drummed into our collective consciousness by a news-media sympathetic to the Howard Government. These are low (but no longer quite so low) interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment, the elimination of Labor's debt, economic growth and 'real wages' growth.

These claims of economic management superiority have not only been left largely unchallenged, but have sometimes even been propagated, by people who ostensibly oppose the Howard Government. Perversely, even former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating has endorsed Treasurer Peter Costello's management of the economy on at least two occasions.

For this reason we have the strange situation where opinion polls show low public support for the Government but favorable support for its economic policies.

Unless this situation changes we may find the same dynamic that got Howard over the line in 2004 will play out again this time. Past experience should have taught Howard's opponents that simply exposing Howard as deceitful and heartless will not win the day.

As the elections draw closer, the newspapers will try to further downplay public concern over the Iraq War, the AWB scandal, the Medicare shambles, cuts to spending on education, privatisation, health, research, social welfare, industrial relations, record high immigration and the Government's failure to act in a more timely and decisive fashion against the threat of global warming. Instead, the news media will seek to focus public attention very narrowly on its depiction of the Australian economy and what's supposedly in it for us.

The issues of concern may still hold the attention of some voters but many are likely once again to swallow the notion of a necessary trade-off between dealing with those issues of concern or ensuring their personal material wellbeing by opting for Howard's allegedly superb economic management.

Uncertainty about the economic prospects under the alternative Labor Government or narrow short-term self-interest may again convince sufficient numbers to vote for the return of Howard's Government.

So just how valid are those claims of the Government's impeccable economic credentials?

The GDP is a poor measure of prosperity and economic performance.

The measures of inflation, from which real wage figures are calculated, as well as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which supposedly measures our national prosperity, are seriously flawed. Even the GDP measure originator, Simon Kuznets of the United States, warned in 1934 that: "the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income as defined (from the GDP)".(1). The vast economist herd has ignored this warning, but thinking economists have not.

In his article "How Far Will the Crash Go, and What Do we Do Now?" published in the Atlantic Free Press on 20 August, Richard Cook tells us that although "the U.S. producing economy has been in a recession for the last year," this has been masked by factors which include "the government's phony GDP numbers, where the 'churning' of financial transactions masquerades as production".

As people are increasingly aware, the GDP measure interprets all economic activity as adding to national prosperity, including that generated by debt, natural disasters and man-made ills.

In spite of these glaring shortcomings economists persistently use the GDP to depict the economic performance of right-wing pro-big-business governments such as John Howard's in a far more favourable light than is warranted.

Poorly performing measures of inflation and real wages.

Inflation figures, upon which claims of real wages growth are based, do not accurately measure many increases in the cost of living for ordinary people. The most scandalous example is the omission of the cost of land from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Given the galloping inflation in costs of housing, of which land is by far the greatest component, the Government's claimed 20 per cent increases in average real wages bear little relation to the reality that many Australians face when struggling to pay off mortgages or rent.

The average distance involved in commuting to and from work has steadily climbed for increasing numbers of people obliged to live in new outer suburbs. These suburbs don't have adequate public transport and the public transport that there is, in any case, is increasingly neglected. A reliable car has become a necessity.

In the past many people still had a large yard and a shed in which they could repair their own car. Even in the outer suburbs now, garden, yard and shed space is shrinking and this affects garage and workshop activity. When people lived closer to work and had good public transport there was less urgency associated with having a vehicle available. The car owner could take their time doing their own repairs or shop around for a reasonably priced and reliable mechanic.

An added complication is that newer cars also have complex computerised parts that cannot be repaired by non-specialists. The upshot is that most people now have little choice but to pay whatever it takes to have the car fixed quickly by the first available mechanic.

For many, mobile phones and the Internet are not just a convenience, they are an expensive necessity for employment and business. They entail substantial costs for equipment and subscriptions.

It is easy to come up with many other examples of newer overheads of work and daily life which are not measured by inflation figures. These overheads are necessary to deal with the ever escalating complexity of our lives.

Amongst other factors, this complexity is the result of:

ever greater crowding of our cities due to enforced population growth,
delegation by government to the less efficient private sector of the responsibility for providing services that the government itself had previously provided, and
the government's own propensity to increase the amount of red tape that citizens need to comply with.

Many things that were once either free or very cheap are now out of reach for ordinary people. In the 1950s and 1960s it was possible for my late grandfather to take his family to a holiday by the beach at Maroochydore on Queensland's Sunshine Coast each year for the entire six weeks of the summer holidays all on the single wage of a primary school teacher. Today, such a holiday is completely beyond the means of ordinary Australians.

Many Australians work longer hours, often as unpaid overtime, often involuntarily, for low wages. Then there are a lot of people who have low hourly rates and are unable to find enough hours of work to make up a decent wage.

The hours worked are often organised in shorter stretches for employer convenience. Thus the unfortunate employee has to make more commuting trips consequently spending more time and money travelling. In all cases the average overall intensity of work during the hours of workday has increased. This means that people who cannot continuously keep up the pace are not able to participate in the workforce as they would like or need to.

If the ABS inflation figures were to comprehensively measure these costs, and attach monetary values to the various ways in which the quality of life for many has declined, the "real wages" figures would probably reveal a substantial drop in the actual standard of living of most Australians and a massive drop for many on the lower end of the income spectrum.

To be sure, a significant number of Australians employed in areas like the mining industry, where some skills are in high demand, do enjoy more material prosperity. If, however, they were to ponder the above factors they might realise that this prosperity is not nearly as great as it superficially appears to be.

The material prosperity we do have, moreover, depends upon high consumption of material goods manufactured mostly in countries like China and India in highly polluting processes which increase the greenhouse effect.

Objectively our natural capital is being destroyed, so we are moving backwards and not forwards.

This article has since been published on Online Opinion on 6 September 2007 as "Living standards and our material prosperity". Comments on this article form OLO readers can be found here. - James Sinnamon, 9 Sep 2007

Footnotes

1. Quoted in "Economia", 2004, by Geoff Davies.

2. See" How Far Will the Crash Go, and What Do we Do Now?" by Richard C. Cook published in the Atlintc Free Press of 20August 2006 at www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2212/1.

More on this topic on this site

For another discussion of the problems in media-popularised measures of economic performance, see on this site, Australian ERA Economist, John Hermann's "Five myths about the economic performance of the Howard Government". "Five myths" identifies and destroys those myths used dishonestly to depict the Howard Government as a brilliant economic manager.

The myths, also referred to above, are lower interest rates, lower inflation than under Labor, low unemployment, the fallacy of the government's economic growth promoting policies and lower government debt. So there are many reasons why the constantly chanted claims of rising living standards and Howard and Treasurer Costello's brilliant economic management can be challenged head on.

Topic:

Throw Howard Out

Myths of the economic competency of the Howard Government

Tue, 2007-08-28 14:53 by James Sinnamon

The myth of superior economic competency/performance, which has been flogged by the conservative Coalition from the time it first assumed office, involves the following assertions:

Myth 1: Interest rates are characteristically lower under federal Coalition governments than under federal Labor governments.

Reality: The fact is that interest rates were very high (12-15%) when John Howard was Treasurer under Malcolm Fraser. And interest rates are not under the control of any government - the Reserve Bank determines interest rates according to its perception of inflationary pressures, and does not take kindly to attempts by politicians to influence its decisions.

Myth 2: Inflation is lower under the Coalition.

Reality: This is obviously wrong to the extent that myth no 1 is wrong. One of the current criticisms of PM Howard is that he has a reputation for being an irresponsible big-spender during election years, and that this behaviour has contributed in no small way to current inflationary pressures [which have recently forced the RBA to raise interest rates, with a further increase anticipated in November 2007].

Myth 3: Unemployment is lower under the Coalition.

Reality: Part of the problem with this claim is that the definition of employment keeps changing. Governments seem determined to keep changing the goal posts and massaging the figures. Currently in Australia, one hour of paid work per week suffices to classify a person as "employed".

In spite of the statistical fiddle, unemployment may be lower in a relative sense, but for reasons which have little to do with the Howard Government's economic capabilities. The main reasons for lower unemployment are the ecologically unsustainable booms in mineral exports and property development and the retirement of the 'baby boom' generation from the workforce.

Also, skilled workers and professionals are expected to accept unskilled jobs, so many who would be otherwise unemployed are employed in low-paying jobs.

Myth 4: Economic growth is greater under the Coalition government, which helps to explains their substantial budget surpluses.

Reality: This claim begs a number of questions, including whether economic growth is always beneficial to human welfare and the state of the environment. It simply ignores the issue of whether it is desirable or healthy for modern economies to be driven by a financial growth imperative. The entire business community now expects and demands that the economy will grow every year, and that average investment returns will exceed 8 percent per annum, irrespective of the long-term consequences.

Moreover it is widely recognised that the recent strong growth of the Australian economy can be mostly attributed to the mining boom, in harness with China's need for the various raw materials that Australia possesses in abundance. The accession of the conservative parties to office has (from their standpoint) fortuitously overlapped with this boom. It has been cogently argued that in such circumstances any stable government could expect to enjoy a strong budget surplus. It may also be argued that substantial budget surpluses imply that many Australians are being overtaxed, and that regressive taxes like the GST should be either phased out or replaced with more progressive forms of taxation.

In any case, any budget surpluses that happen to occur could be more wisely utilised in public infrastructure investment than in pre-election hand-outs and pork-barrelling within marginal electorates. The record of the federal Coalition government on infrastructure spending is actually very poor, and everyone is suffering in one way or another from their neglect.

Myth 5: The federal Coalition is more responsible than the opposition because it has paid off "Labor's debt".

Reality: Even if there happened to be some truth in this claim, the fact is that the bulk of public debt in Australia has always resided at the state and local government levels, and that over the years this debt has accumulated under both Labor and Coalition governments. Moreover, the overall level of Australian debt and other liabilities, both public and private, has escalated out of control during the past decade. During the period of the Howard government's watch, the ratio of total liabilities to GDP has increased exponentially at a rate never before experienced. This feature of our economy is utterly unsustainable, and the consequences will hit the average Australian very hard whenever any significant global economic contraction occurs. This problem has been elaborated by David Keane, and a good summary of the situation along with the relevant statistics may be found on the Economic Reform Australia (ERA) web site era.org.au.

The above has been adapted from an article was posted to the ERANet Yahoo Groups mailing list by John Hermann on 19 August 2007. More information about John Hermann and Economic Reform Australia (ERA) can be found on the web site era.org.au

Topic:

Does Anybody Know What Melbourne 2030 Is Producing?

Thu, 2007-08-23 00:04 by Sheila Newman

Macedon Ranges Residents' Association of Victoria writes: Who is measuring what Melbourne 2030 produces? E.g. dwelling growth v population growth, occupancy rates, location of development and relevance to need/demand, type of development v impacts on existing character and values, suburbanization of rural areas, etc. Terms of Reference for the Melbourne 2030 audit include a requirement for recommendations on appropriate mechanisms for monitoring implementation of Melbourne 2030. The group has undertaken a broad review of 2006 census results to get a “snapshot” of trends for Victoria, Melbourne metro area, and “fringe” Shires, at a municipality level. Key Trends Unoccupied Dwellings Do you know there were 216,000 unoccupied dwellings in Victoria on census night, 120,000 in Melbourne? That unoccupied dwellings increased as a percentage of all private dwellings between 2001 and 2006? Some places had vacancy rates over 40% (e.g. Queenscliffe (+50%), Bass Coast (47.7%), Surf Coast (43.7%), yet all also had relatively high levels of new dwellings: +52, +2,778 and +1,723 respectively. Negative Population Growth, Rampant Dwelling Growth Banyule lost 224 people, gained 829 households, gained 1,468 dwellings and had 2,737 unoccupied dwellings. Moonee Valley lost 193 people, gained 208 households and 1,023 dwellings, with 3,286 unoccupied dwellings. Queenscliffe lost 148 people and 14 households, yet had 52 additional dwellings and a 50.2% vacancy rate. Mis-Match Between Household Growth And Dwelling Growth Common occurrence. Small household increases, large dwelling increases, larger vacancy rates. For example, Bayside gained +2,185 people but only 264 new households, had 95 fewer lone person households, 913 more dwellings and 3,235 unoccupied dwellings. Baw Baw had 892 new households, 1,321 new dwellings and 1,874 unoccupied dwellings. Over-60s Grew But Nowhere Near Projected Rates - Over-Estimated In Almost All Municipalities DSE projections have driven a boom in “unit” development that has caused existing residents a lot of pain. Some places we think of as having booming young family growth also have high over-60s growth (e.g. Whittlesea, where over-60s growth equated to a third of total population growth). Reductions In Lone Person Households Bayside lost 95, Boroondara lost 618, Stonnington lost 333. Other municipalities had reduced percentages of LPH e.g Port Phillip, Whitehorse. Yet projections simply assume all places are the same. Are We Really Supposed To Rely On Victoria In Future Projections? They are based on what has been happening, not what should happen. Broadest assumptions are used to produce projections – not specific to each municipality – rural and metro get the same assumptions, and pressure for the same outcomes. Projections are not influenced by policy but end up becoming policy in their own right. DSE projections drive development, are pushed down our throats as justification for bad development – over-development, and the wrong sort of development. E.g. 28 square, two storey “units” on 300 square metres to accommodate “old” people. Post 2006 census, DSE seems ready to absorb yet another 630,000 people[6] into the next projections, without questioning whether Melbourne can accommodate more. Developers are driving policy and outcomes While Melbourne 2030 and other planning policy is creating plenty of new dwellings (+171,000 in Victoria), many are either not affordable, not what people want, or simply second dwellings that aren’t accommodating population growth. Do we in fact have a glut of (unusable) housing in a time of claimed housing shortages? Developers are deciding what is built, where, when and at what cost, supported by government and the system. Much of what they produce is over-priced, top end (“gold tap”) elitist, in expensive locations, or cheaper and more profitable greenfields development that is too quickly filling up Melbourne’s reserve of vacant residential land – wherever the highest profit potential beckons. What happens after 2030? Melbourne 2030 is delivering profits to developers, but wholesale pain to the wider community. Developers’ investments are protected, but not the investments of people affected by bad development. Developers will no doubt now be lobbying for yet more planning rules to be thrown out and more land to be opened up. A much more considered response is needed. What happens when Mc Mansion homeowners walk away from homes they can’t afford – who buys their house, and where do they live? Have we created a generation with debts they may never repay? Add to that a new baby boom as well as the old, climate change, infrastructure deficiencies, and increasingly, social unsustainability. Ordinary people and some planning experts have been telling government that Melbourne 2030 and the VPPs aren’t working. They are right. It’s well past time for the government to listen at least equally to the community and experts, not just developers, and to really get to the bottom of what’s happening under Melbourne 2030. Sheila Newman, Land-use Planning Sociologist: The above was a slightly edited excerpt from a cracking dissection of the notorious Victorian planning document, Melbourne 2030, by the Macedon Ranges Residents' Association (Victoria). This comes from their submission for their Meeting with Victorian Planning and Community Development Minister Justin Madden at 8 Nicholson St., East Melbourne on the 16 August, 2007.

Cate Molloy slams Warren Truss over proposed India Free Trade Agreement

Wed, 2007-08-22 01:08 by James Sinnamon

Media Release 21 August 2007 The Southern Cross Independent Candidate for Wide Bay, Cate Molloy, today slammed Warren Truss for reportedly seeking to engage India in a Free Trade Agreement. "Again, Warren Truss seems intent on destroying the livelihood of Australian farmers, and seeing Australian businesses and jobs disappearing overseas," said Cate Molloy. "Truss has once again abandoned the bush," she said. "We need Fair Trade Agreements, not so-called Free Trade Agreements with high powered economies driven by cheap labour," said Ms Molloy. "Once again, the bush will suffer. India is highly protective of its agricultural sector, while Truss and Howard seem intent on destroying our own," said Cate. "How can we compete with slave labour?" she asked. "It's about time, we were protective of our Australian farmers, Australian businesses and Australian workers," said Cate Molloy. Enquiries Cate Molloy, Independent Candidate for Wide Bay, Peregian Beach Qld 4573 07 54483784 0408729499 0407114729

Turnbull catapults Gunns' polluting pulp mill into the heart of the Federal Election

Tue, 2007-08-21 00:00 by James Sinnamon

Greeens Media Release 20/08/07 Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has made a monumental blunder in giving draft approval to Gunns' polluting pulp mill in the absence of the information he needs to determine whether it was ever even possible to protect the environment from its poisons, Greens' Senator Christine Milne said today. "The marine life of Bass Strait and its rich fishery deserve better than political brinkmanship, and they will get it at the ballot box. "Malcolm Turnbull is the country's Minister for the Environment, not the Minister for facilitating Gunns. The campaign to protect Tasmania's environment and clean, green future now lies in the hands of the community and will be fought all the way to the Federal poll, here in Tasmania and in marginal seats across the country. "Minister Turnbull has put the cart before the horse. What justification can he possibly have for throwing the Precautionary Principle overboard and giving draft approval to a project when he admits he doesn't know what impact the toxic effluent will have on Bass Strait? "If the Minister was serious about his environmental responsibility he would have stopped the clock on the EPBC Act assessment until he had the information he needed from the Chief Scientist, and from the hydrodynamic modelling. Instead, he gave approval anyway to reassure the development-at-any-cost forest industry that he is on side. "The Minister should have conducted a full environmental impact assessment with public hearings because he has known all along that Gunns' preliminary documentation was shonky and inadequate, and did not satisfy the original assessment process under the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC). "It's an insult to the community to be offered the opportunity to comment after he has already given the green light to the project, albeit with conditions "Crocodile tears about the limited nature of the Commonwealth's powers are disingenuous. The Minister was happy to push through changes to the EPBC Act last year which prohibited him from assessing the impact on Tasmania's native forests of thirty years of Gunns' logging to feed its pulp mill. "Far from being over, the pulp mill debate is set to rage from now to Election day as the community makes all State and Federal members aware of how strongly it feels about selling out the environment for the benefit of narrow, sectional interests," Senator Milne said. For More Information: Cassy O'Connor Email: cassey.o'conner|AT|aph.com.au Phone: 0400 628 939

An upside to the US financial collapse?

Tue, 2007-08-21 00:00 by James Sinnamon

The following article was published in "The Nation" magazine of 20 August 2007.

The author Barbara Ehrenreich is author of Nickel and Dimed, Bait and Switch and Dancing in the Streets. Nickel and Dimed was the inspiration for Australian journalist Elisabeth Wynhuasen's Dirt Cheap of 2005. The two books chronicled the respective experiences of both authors living 'undercover' for a year as low skilled workers on low pay.

Smashing Capitalism

by Barbara Ehrenreich

Somewhere in the Hamptons a high-roller is cursing his cleaning lady and shaking his fists at the lawn guys. The American poor, who are usually tactful enough to remain invisible to the multi-millionaire class, suddenly leaped onto the scene and started smashing the global financial system. Incredibly enough, this may be the first case in history in which the downtrodden manage to bring down an unfair economic system without going to the trouble of a revolution.

First they stopped paying their mortgages, a move in which they were joined by many financially stretched middle class folks, though the poor definitely led the way. All right, these were trick mortgages, many of them designed to be unaffordable within two years of signing the contract. There were "NINJA" loans, for example, awarded to people with "no income, no job or assets." Conservative columnist Niall Fergusen laments the low levels of "economic literacy" that allowed people to be exploited by sub-prime loans. Why didn't these low-income folks get lawyers to go over the fine print? And don't they have personal financial advisors anyway?

Then, in a diabolically clever move, the poor--a category which now roughly coincides with the working class--stopped shopping. Both Wal-Mart and Home Depot announced disappointing second quarter performances, plunging the market into another Arctic-style meltdown. H. Lee Scott, CEO of the low-wage Wal-Mart empire, admitted with admirable sensitivity, that "it's no secret that many customers are running out of money at the end of the month."

I wish I could report that the current attack on capitalism represents a deliberate strategy on the part of the poor, that there have been secret meetings in break rooms and parking lots around the country, where cell leaders issued instructions like, "You, Vinny--don't make any mortgage payment this month. And Caroline, forget that back-to-school shopping, OK?" But all the evidence suggests that the current crisis is something the high-rollers brought down on themselves.

When, for example, the largest private employer in America, which is Wal-Mart, starts experiencing a shortage of customers, it needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror. About a century ago, Henry Ford realized that his company would only prosper if his own workers earned enough to buy Fords. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, never seemed to figure out that its cruelly low wages would eventually curtail its own growth, even at the company's famously discounted prices.

The sad truth is that people earning Wal-Mart-level wages tend to favor the fashions available at the Salvation Army. Nor do they have much use for Wal-Mart's other departments, such as Electronics, Lawn and Garden, and Pharmacy.

It gets worse though. While with one hand the high-rollers, H. Lee Scott among them, squeezed the American worker's wages, the other hand was reaching out with the tempting offer of credit. In fact, easy credit became the American substitute for decent wages. Once you worked for your money, but now you were supposed to pay for it. Once you could count on earning enough to save for a home. Now you'll never earn that much, but, as the lenders were saying--heh, heh--do we have a mortgage
for you!

Pay day loans, rent-to-buy furniture and exorbitant credit card interest rates for the poor were just the beginning. In its May 21st cover story on " The Poverty Business," Business Week documented the stampede, in just the last few years, to lend money to the people who could least afford to pay the interest: Buy your dream home! Refinance your house! Take on a car loan even if your credit rating sucks! Financiamos a Todos! Somehow, no one bothered to figure out where the poor were going to get the money to pay for all the money they were being offered.

Personally, I prefer my revolutions to be a little more pro-active. There should be marches and rallies, banners and sit-ins, possibly a nice color theme like red or orange. Certainly, there should be a vision of what you intend to replace the bad old system with--European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?

Global capitalism will survive the current credit crisis; already, the government has rushed in to soothe the feverish markets. But in the long term, a system that depends on extracting every last cent from the poor cannot hope for a healthy prognosis. Who would have thought that foreclosures in Stockton and Cleveland would roil the markets of London and Shanghai? The poor have risen up and spoken; only it sounds less like a shout of protest than a low, strangled, cry of pain.

'$120 million and counting' spent on 'Work Choices' propaganda

Sat, 2007-08-18 11:27 by James Sinnamon

I heard the speech below by Labor Senator John Faulkner by chance on Wednesday 15 August. It is on pages 38 to 39 of the original pdf document, which can be downloaded from www.aph.gov.au/hansard/hanssen.htm. In his speech, Faulkner gave the hard facts and numbers behind the Howard Government's use of taxpayers' money to promote itself and its Industrial Relations legislation - legislation, which has changed the very fabric of our society, but which had not even put to electors during the 2004 elections. The figures, up to and including the latest spate of misleading, and factually wrong "Know Where You Stand" advertisements featuring the photogenic public servant Barbara Bennett has cost taxpayers "AU$120 million and counting". The total bill for government self-promotion since its re-election in 2004 election until has not been revealed by John Howard, but Senator Faulkner estimates it to be between AU$800million and AU$1 billion, much of it paid to the Liberal Party's own advertiser Ed Horton.

Of course, the Howard Government has not been alone in such abuses of taxpayer funds. The previous Hawke and Keating Federal Labor governments also notoriously spent lavishly on self-promotion as have many Liberal and Labor state Governments. However, all of these are dwarfed by the sheer scale of the Howard Government's efforts, and it would be hard to find an example of any other advertising campaign which is so dishonest and any other piece of legislaton which is so harmful to the interests of ordinary working Australians as the Howard Government's Industrial Relations 'reforms'.

None of this must be forgotten, whatever anger many voters feel against current state Labor governments such as the dictatorial pro-business, anti-environmental Queensland Beattie Labor government.

The re-election of the Howard government, which is prepared to use so much money, which would be far better spent on building schools, hospitals or repairing Australia's damaged environment. in order to deceive its constituency, poses a mortal threat to democracy.

John Howard's Government's government must be thrown out of office and a full public inquiry into its abuses of power must be conducted. If laws are found to have been breached, they must be prosecuted to the full extent possible, and if such laws do not exist they must be enacted so that this experience is never repeated.

The speech below is a typically excellent speech by Senator John Faulkner - the kind of which goes largely unreported in the major newspapers. I could not find any evidence of any reporting of it, even in newspapers more disposed toward honest objective reporting such as the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age. Possibly the bonanza in advertising revenue flowing from this taxpayer-funded blitz has induced even these newpapers to turn a blind eye to this public scandal of first order magnitude.

Liberal Party Workplace Relations

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (1.38 pm)-There is a long and disturbing story in Australian public life, a tale with its origins in a political and economic framework that ignores longstanding Australian values of fairness and opportunity. It is a tale that has unfolded more rapidly since the 2004 election, and the most recent chapter in this story is now before us.

The 2004 federal election saw the Prime Minister's party gain control of this chamber. That was the same election when the Prime Minister promised Australian families that he would keep interest rates at record lows but made no mention of an extreme agenda of stripping away the take-home pay and conditions of hardworking Australians. But, once Mr Howard had control of the parliament after the 2004 election, he used that control to force through the unfair industrial relations laws that later became known as Work Choices. With those laws, the Howard government also introduced two extraordinary programs of promotion: the promotion of these unfair laws and the promotion of the Howard government's re-election hopes.

The first Work Choices advertising program, the one that ran at the time of the introduction of the Work Choices laws, was a monolithic $55 million promotion exercise. It was impossible to turn on a television without seeing the Work Choices ads, and they were brought to the TV screen by the Liberal Party's own ad man, Ted Horton. But their spending program did not end there. In early January 2006, employer organisations were slamming the advertising campaign. The then Chief Executive of Australian Business Ltd, Mr Mark Bethwaite, said:

TV advertisements have not worked ... What we need is practical, solution focused materials which allow employersto apply Work Choices to their workplace.

Within days, in late January 2006, the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations announced:

The WorkChoices Employer Advisor Programme (EAP) is only one element of a wider information and education campaign that will ensure all workers, their families and employers are aware of the changes and receive information about how WorkChoices may affect them.

He went on to say:

The aim of the EAP is to ensure that there are advisors around Australia, including rural and regional areas, able to educate and assist employers to implement the reforms on an industry basis.

The two initial stages of the Employer Advisor Program were provided with funding of more than $20 million throughout the 2006 calendar year. A subsequent fund of $20 million has been provided for a further round of the EAP in the 2007 calendar year.

Then we came to another chapter in the Howard government's shameless self-promotion rort. That chapter started in April, when the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications approved the Open Mind Research Group to undertake workplace relations research. These reports were received in late April and have formed the strategy of the government's repositioning in industrial relations over the past four months. Thanks to leaked research detailed in the Australian, we know this research drove the dropping of the title 'Work Choices' from the government's lexicon, the renaming of its IR institutions, the establishment of the so-called 'fairness test' and the use of an 'appropriate figurehead' of the Workplace Authority in advertising.

It also lead to a new blitz of advertising - advertising that started before the full drafting instructions for the legislation had been sent to Parliamentary Counsel. And the cost for this round of advertising is $23 million, and still counting. At that time, a detailed research report by Crosby Textor was leaked to the media. In that research report, the Liberal Party's campaign directors noted:

The arrival of Kevin Rudd into the Labor leadership has also given voters renewed confidence ...to express their reservations about WorkChoices; and especially in the absence of counter claims or information to the anti-IR messages being disseminated by the unions.

But in June, when the Liberal apparatchiks down at Crosby Textor were preparing this report, they were also preparing a second research report for the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry pro-Work Choices campaign. In their research report for the business campaign, they proposed advertising that would be 'a counterpoint to the one-sided ads of the unions' as well as being 'immediate countering of Labor's and the unions' scare campaign'. Sounds familiar? Well, just yesterday, The Age newspaper detailed the fact that VECCI president Richard Holyman wrote to his board supporting the business campaign. The article read:

Holyman tried to convince fellow board members to support the advertisements. He linked the call for a donation to the fact that the Government had given grants to VECCI under the Employer Assistance Program to run Work Choices seminars.

[Holyman wrote] "It is apparent that the key contributors are not wanting a blatant political campaign, but believe that so much effort went into supporting the Work Choices package, we have to help defend it now ... we have had in excess of $600K in grants to help implement Work Choices."

This brings us to the most recent chapter in this story. This chapter concerns the advertising being undertaken by the self-styled Business Coalition for Workplace Reform. This is the group of employer organisations, led by the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, supporting a campaign of television advertising. It is important to acknowledge that only one part of the business community supports this campaign. In fact, many employers and employer organisations do not support this campaign. Many employers and employer organisations present their views in a more mature and appropriate manner. But the Business Coalition for Workplace Reform have a different agenda. They are not running advertisements advocating a specific policy position or providing important information. They are political ads. They use the partisan and pre-election messages, imageries and strategies of the Liberal Party. These organisations have received millions of dollars to promote Work Choices, and now the government calls on them to cough up money for advertising.

We now have media reports of a link between the Employer Advisor Program and the business advertising campaign. We have the role of Crosby Textor - the firm of the Liberal Party and Mr Howard's personal pollster, Mark Textor, and former Liberal Party Federal Director Lynton Crosby. They are the election strategists for the Liberal-National coalition and the advertising campaign strategists for the business coalition, and they advocate the same communication and electoral strategy for both of their clients. This is on top of a $120 million - that is $120 million, and counting - Work Choices campaign by the government, spending the tax dollars of hard-working Australian families.

This is a deeply disturbing development. It is disturbing that the BCA and ACCI have chosen to behave in this way. It is disturbing to suspect that the membership of the BCA and ACCI does not have the full story of what is being done in the name of these organisations. It is disturbing that all three campaigns - the campaigns of the government, of the Liberal Party and of the business coalition - look like they are actually just one campaign. And it is deeply disturbing that this political, partisan advertising campaign is designed to promote and argue for laws that hurt working Australians and their families.

This is just one more example of the Howard government's shameless exploitation of taxpayer funds and resources in a desperate attempt to cling on to office; one more example of shameless rorting by the Howard government; one more aspect of a taxpayer-funded reelection advertising splurge that, between the last election and the upcoming election, will come to between $800 million and $1 billion on advertising alone. Unsurprisingly, Mr Howard will not reveal just how much he will reach into the wallets and pockets and purses of taxpayers - of ordinary working Australians - to fund his re-election epic campaign. That is because after 11 years in office, I think Mr Howard actually believes that taxpayers' money is his own. It has been 11 long years of arrogance and incompetence from the Howard government, and I say again that it is time - it is long past time - that it is brought to an end.

Topic:

Complaints about Melbourne 2030: record of submission to Planning Minister 16-8-07

Thu, 2007-08-16 22:53 by Sheila Newman

This clear and hard-hitting submission could help others who are trying to fight the heartbreaking effects of forced population growth, infrastructure expansion and intensification all over Australia.

The submission below about Melbourne 2030, which is a radical populate and develop plan imposed on Victorians, was made by Sustainable Population Australia Inc., Victorian Branch to the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, re Melbourne 2030 August 2007 for meeting with community groups 16 August 2007.

Points made covered the following areas.

Melbourne 2030's raison d'etre of population growth,
Victorian Government's role in affecting and effecting the rate of population growth,
Melbourne 2030 and population growth - style and content of consultation with people of Victoria,
Quality of public information from Victorian Government regarding Melbourne 2030/population growth,
Effects of Melbourne 2030 and its Population growth.

1. Population growth and Melbourne 2030

Melbourne and outer areas do not have the option of stabilizing in any way as population growth is programmed into our future. In 2002 The Bracks Government and other stakeholders held a 'summit' in Melbourne to discuss the need or otherwise of a population policy. The then Premier, Mr. Steve Bracks, in his keynote introduction pre-empted the outcome of the conference yet to happen! He made the absolute assumption that experts would converge on the desirability of increasing Victoria's population. Many in the audience had huge reservations and objections to this path mainly on the grounds of environmental sustainability.

Melbourne 2030 is about a commitment to social engineering in the form of forced population growth.

2. Victorian Government's role in affecting the rate of population growth.

Excluding net increase from international and interstate migration, Victoria's population is increasing by more than 30,000 p.a. It will be more than this with the current baby boom. This fact should be well known, but it is not.

In the year to March 2006, the additional increase from net overseas migration was 37,068 . The total increase in Victoria's population annually is in excess of 60,000 people. The Victorian government has given itself a role in affecting this number. One way it achieves this is via its $6 million skilled migration strategy which includes international and domestic marketing (see www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au).

In the 12 months to March 2006, there were 65,700 extra Victorians, or in other words, an additional Ballarat.

The Victorian Government is not a passive recipient of population growth. It actively seeks it. Victoria only needs radical planning because it has very high population growth by western standards, of which more than half is not through natural increase.

3. Consultation with the Victorian people regarding population growth and Melbourne 2030.

Many people have told me that Victorians were not consulted on Melbourne 2030.... but we were. Glossy books and pamphlets were delivered in all letter boxes with invitations to attend public meetings which were facilitated to funnel ideas from the public to the master of ceremonies at each meeting. People were separated onto tables of about 8 people each and if there was sufficient volume of opinion of a particular aspect of Melbourne's future on any one table then that idea got up and was promoted to the end distillation of ideas. The underlying assumption however was that growth was inevitable rather than a political decision. The politics and policies of engineering growth remained outside the discussion and slow or no growth were not presented as options.

There was goodwill and cooperation at the meeting I attended in Moorabbin as people enthusiastically put forward their priorities apparently thinking they were having a significant say in the Melbourne which was being shaped for future generations.

I suggest that the audit of Melbourne 2030 must seek the attitudes of Victorians to the politics of population growth and to population growth itself. Adequate consultation thereto would rely on good information about what planning decisions are necessitated by population growth - in terms of amenity, environment and economic well-being of the average citizen.

4. Information re Melbourne 2030 and Population growth from the Victorian Government.

Please make clear in public statements what is actually happening to us. It is a fact that adverse changes are occurring very rapidly to our surroundings and many people express bewilderment over this. They look at housing estates covering what used to be farmland and ask "where are all the people coming from?"

We have a longstanding approximately 2:1 birth to death ratio which means our population is growing without any immigration. On 15 August 2005, the then Premier of Victoria Mr. Bracks told the Melbourne Jon Faine morning show audience that in Victoria we had a naturally decreasing population and that deaths exceeded births. I wrote to the Premier asking him where he got his figures from and told him that the reverse was true. He never replied to my letter and as far as I know never corrected this misinformation.

5. Effects of population growth

Most new settlers in Victoria go to Melbourne. Melbourne is full. Extra population puts pressure on land, there is pressure to intensify development. "Opportunistic infilling," (Dr Bob Birrell's expression) occurs in random fashion as houses come up for sale and private buyers are out-bid by developers.

There is pressure on public land. It is lost to the public (e.g. Royal Park lost 20 ha to private development plus 85 million cash) Trees and open space are taken from both private and public spheres including gardens, parks, reserves and roadsides.

Urban consolidation is not enough to accommodate the current level of population growth. This growth puts pressure on the outer areas, on wildlife, on open space. Melbourne 2030 standards are applied in what are essentially country areas, resulting in dense developments often unpopular with incumbent residents.

Wildlife - development occurs in areas inhabited by wildlife with an ensuing conflict over territory between humans and animals. This is often only managed when brought to the attention when locals complain vigorously to the authorities. It is never resolved in favour of the animals. They always lose. e.g. Somerton kangaroos.

We ask for a wildlife assessment to be done before any development takes place and for all planning to incorporate wildlife corridors in cooperation with the Coalition for Wildlife corridors - see http://www.awpc.org.au/newsite/documents/proposal_to_link.pdf

Water - we don't have enough for current needs. Melbourne 2030 and population growth exacerbate this situation. Any savings we make will be consumed by population growth.
Pressure on house prices is increasingly caused by population growth, in which demand exceeds supply. This causes prices to rise as we have observed particularly over the last decade, when we have had very high immigration.

Recommendations:

A real effort to keep the public accurately informed of demographic changes in all relevant government documents and public statements. Make information clear so as not to confuse or obscure data.
2. Seek public opinion on the underlying assumption, that we must boost our population. Does population boosting benefit the majority and, if so, in what ways? What are the negatives? How to they weigh up?
Real Estate spokespeople now connect house prices with population growth when speaking publicly. Government should do likewise.
Planning policy puts economic growth above environmental concerns. This needs to be redressed. Planning policy must take in the Precautionary Principle where growth compromises our environment.
High density living in the outer areas of Melbourne which are poorly served by public transport leaves communities vulnerable to being marooned in terms of basic requirements and transport by declining oil affordability / availability. In addition, tiny lot sizes remove most opportunity for self sufficiency in food provision. To remedy this the Government should make zoning changes. R1 allows very small lots in regional towns and outer suburbs (with potential for higher population density than in Singapore and Berlin). We need to keep outer suburbs open and spacious. SPA suggest a new Residential zone 3 with a minium of lot sizes at 500 square metres and above, plus minimum permeable area of 50% per lot.
More space for large trees in inner and outer suburbs is essential to maintain transpiration and microclimate, and to keep temperatures down. In the past 150 years increases in population and activities have impacted thermodynamically to raise city temperatures. (For instance snow rarely falls in cities anymore).
The expected effects of oil depletion should be taken into account in planning- i.e. the layout of the city and suburbs, transport needs for commuting and provision, delivery of food and degree of opportunity for self-sufficiency.

Jill Quirk
President, SPA Victoria
with Sheila Newman, Vice President, SPA Victoria

Howard's paper thin hypocrisy on amalgamations

Thu, 2007-08-16 13:47 by James Sinnamon

Media Release

Thursday 16 August 2007

The Coalition Government has exposed its hypocrisy on council amalgamations with its current attack on the Queensland Government according to Independent Member for Calare, Peter Andren.

"When I took a delegation of local mayors to Canberra several years ago to see then Local Government Minister Wilson Tuckey, he was enthusiastic about the need for mergers of councils," Mr Andren said.

"Evans, Oberon and Bathurst Councils were then facing amalgamation and he voiced strong support for amalgamations in the interests of better council management.

"Both Liberal and Labor Governments have never backed away from such policy.

"The Prime Minister talks of giving people a say in the process. How come the limited public input into the recent federal electorate boundary changes was largely ignored, especially from people strongly opposed to the ridiculous boundaries for the new Calare?

"There are no referendums for state or federal boundary changes, why the concern over local government boundaries determined by the same commission process?

"This is pure unadulterated election year populism from a government that is philosophically at one with any state labor Government in wanting to wind down local government to a more politically controllable entity.

"I personally oppose council amalgamations unless there are overwhelming financial reasons that will benefit ratepayers. But the major parties are as one in their desire to reduce local people power.

"Wilson Tuckey proved that when he was federal Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government," Mr Andren said.

Peter Andren, is the popular Independent Federal MP representing the NSW rural electorate of Calare, which has recently been destroyed in all but name as a result of boundary changes. Peter Andren had announced his nomination as a candidate for the state of NSW in the forthcoming Senate elections. However, he has since been diagnosed as having cancer so has been forced to withdraw his nomination so that he can focus his energies on treatment for the condition and recovery.

For further information: 02 6332 6229 or 0427 480 825 or visit www.peterandren.com

Queensland mayors defy dismissal threats to consult their communities

Sun, 2007-08-12 14:28 by James Sinnamon

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie and his Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser have forgotten the meaning of the word 'democracy'. Mayors who consult with their own constituents over the question of the abolition of their local governments face instant dismissal. These provisions were added to the legislation, which forces many Queensland local councils to amalgamate with neighbouring councils, at the last minute when the legislation was rushed through in the early hours of Friday 10 August.

At least two councillors intend to defy these laws and proceed with these ballots nonetheless. These include Mayor Donna Stewart of Warroo shire and Mayor John Brent of Boonah Shire. Both Boonah and Warroo shires are to be abolished under the Queensland local government 'reforms'.

According to Brisbane's (pro-amalgamation) Courier Mail newspaper of 11 August:

A DEFIANT southwest Queensland council is poised to become the first sacked for organising a vote under tough new amalgamation laws.

Warroo Shire Council, which will merge with four other councils around Roma under the reforms, has indicated it will count votes already received from a survey at a meeting on Tuesday.

"It's a survey, but I'm willing to take the consequences regardless," Mayor Donna Stewart said.

"This is an attack on the democratic right of the people to have a say."

Housing minister Andrew Fraser has taken his extraordinary threats against the people of Queensland one step further by threatening to dismiss councillors who count votes for ballots that have already been sent out. The Courier Mail reported:

But the State Government warned councils not to proceed with any counting, even if survey ballots had been sent out. A dozen councils, including Tambo and Ilfracombe, are pressing ahead with the referendums.

Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser was not impressed, warning any counting or collating would attract instant dismissal.

"Obviously, they can't stop the mail arriving but they need to take no further action that proceeds with the poll in any way," Mr Fraser said.

Please send messages of support for Boonah Shire Mayor John Brent to mayor|AT|boonah qld gov au and for Warroo Shire Mayor Donna Stewart to donna_s1|AT|bigpond com and let Andrew Fraser and Peter Beattie know of your objections to their dicatatorial behaviour. Their e-mail addresses are respectively ThePremier|AT|premiers qld gov au and lgps|AT|ministerial qld gov au.

Update, 16 August 07

Queensland Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser has since backed away from his previous threat to dismiss Councils who counted votes about shire amalgamations. ABC news on 16 August reported that Warroo Shire residents had unanimously opposed the amalgamation,

Don't let them stop you from voting! Enrol NOW!

Sat, 2007-08-11 16:02 by admin

The Howard Government passed legislation that will close the rolls for new voters at 8.00pm on the night the Federal election is called. Previously, voters had a week to register to vote. Last election, the Electoral Commission received a total of 423,975 enrolment cards in that week; 78,816 of those were new enrolments. Many 18-year-olds will miss out on the chance to register under this new legislation. You can check your enrolment with the AEC online. To download an enrolment form, right click here and select 'save link as...'. To help with the call to overturn the legislation please sign a petition at www.getup.org.au.

Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide

Fri, 2007-08-10 02:11 by James Sinnamon

Those who have read "The Latham Diaries" will have found startling confirmation of the fact the State Labor Premiers are cynical enough to deliberately damage the electoral prospects of their Federal counterparts in order to better ensure their own survival at the state level.Adapted from an article cross-posted to Online Opinion. Also, see article on webdiary "Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances" by Margo Kingston.

Those who have read "The Latham Diaries" will have found startling confirmation of the fact the State Labor Premiers are cynical enough to deliberately damage the electoral prospects of their Federal counterparts in order to better ensure their own survival at the state level. Former NSW Premier Bob Carr expressed it thus in his own diaries on 6 November 2001, quoted on pages 305-306 of "The Latham Diaries"(2005):

Published polls and the Party's polling starting to show Federal Labor edging up. Can't believe it. ... (Michael Egan, NSW State Treasurer said,) 'We'll be the ones weeping if Labor wins.' Yes - the secret agenda: State Labor wants to run against a rotting hated Coalition Government in Canberra. A Labor Government there only makes a third (State) term harder.

Mark Latham commented: "People used to get expelled from the Labor Party for this sort of treachery. Yet when it appeared in Marilyn Dodkin's book on Carr last year, no-one batted an eye-lid. Has it become part of the system? Everyone now expects Carr Labor to selfishly look after itself, cheering for a Howard victory, ..."

And certainly Bob Carr, together with his Victorian and Tasmanian counterparts did just that, as Latham abundantly illustrated, and we have them largely to thank for Howard's victory in 2004, together with "Work Choices" and all of his other policy abominations.

Which brings us to the forced council amalgamations in Queensland. There are no sound reasons derived from Labor principles to justify Beattie's current plans to abolish so many local governments which are in tune with the needs of their constituents. Indeed, it was a former Queensland Hanlon Labor Government which gave local government the powers they have enjoyed up until now (see "When amalgamations failed" by Dr Mark McGovern of the QUT).

The only possible motives that I see are:

To take away the powers that local communities now have to prevent the further ravaging of their regions by property developers, and
A cynical political stunt, in emulation of Bob Carr, to use the perpetuation of John Howard's rule to ensure the survival of his Government at the next State election.

Topic:

When amalgamations failed

Tue, 2007-08-07 14:11 by James Sinnamon

This page has been adapted from a Micro$oft Word document located on the www.localdemocracy.com.au web site.

When Hanlon introduced the Queensland Local Government Act in 1936 he spoke proudly of the ability his Labor government would give small local governments in Queensland - to legislate in their own right. This was revolutionary, he noted, and the way forward. Democratic representation and effective powers in relevant areas were localised and embedded in responsible, independent local governments.

Interestingly, the 1936 legislation did not amalgamate towns or reduce the number of shires from 124 to 74 as had been recommended by the 1928 Royal Commission. Nor did it build upon the Greater Brisbane model of 1924 which saw an amalgamation of two cities, six towns and ten shires. Why in only twelve years had the model been reversed?

The history of this troubled amalgamation and of the "greaterisation" push in the Labor party are fascinating. Whatever the earlier dream, by 1936 the Labor state government had to deal with serious problems in amalgamated Brisbane, as had the earlier Moore government.

Disturbed by the "inefficiency, extravagance and malpractice of the Labor council", the State legislated to control budgeting and financial reporting in Brisbane. Politically committed to providing public works, or infrastructure in today's terms, without increasing rates the amalgamated council had resorted to cooking the books.

A "true deficit of sixty six thousand pounds" was "converted to a surplus of one hundred and twenty thousand pounds by not charging depreciation and renewals against the city fund". Today that would be a multimillion dollar fraud. These men, it seems, did not start off with evil intent. Rather they appear caught between an inappropriate structure and the impossible task they set themselves.

The push for sewerage and city roads in a low tax amalgamated city cost Brisbane dearly. While other Australian cities were progressively sewered, Brisbane had to wait for three decades, Clem Jones' Labor and sufficient financial capacity.

Ever since, the Auditor General has kept close watch on local government finances. Local governments have generally acted responsibly, with state interventions when they have not. As demonstrated in Perspectives on July 24, local governments today are in generally reasonable financial shape, and are not playing the accounting tricks of the earlier amalgamated Brisbane.

In an era when Queenslanders and their new nation were struggling through the long Great Depression they looked with pride to Melba, Phar Lap, Bradman and other Australian inspirations that helped them hope beyond their immediate troubles. The Depression and War eventually passed - but the costs of amalgamation lingered in poor Brisbane.

The current state government push to ridicule this period by perversely using its inspirations aroused my curiosity. Laverty's chapter on "Greater Brisbane and Local Government" in "Labor in Power" edited by Murphy and others sheds much light, the quotes being drawn from it. Those with a greater knowledge of history would be aware of such things, but the rest of us may need to do a little catching up and reflect on the lessons of history.

It took less than a decade for Labor's earlier experiment with grand amalgamation to fail. Might we not learn from our own history and save our selves needless expense and pain incurred from obsessively following a grand but fundamentally flawed idea?

Written on 1 August 07 by Dr Mark McGovern. Dr McGovern is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Economics and Finance at Queensland University of Technology.

No forced amalgamations

Community intervenes to save St Kilda's stranded possums

Mon, 2007-08-06 20:41 by quark

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

MEDIA RELEASE

Sunday 5 August 2007

On Wednesday morning last 1 August 2007, contractors moved into the Catani Gardens in St Kilda and, ignoring a community picket, proceeded to strip off access chutes on the metal 'possum exclusion bands' high up on the Canary Island Palms, thus effectively stranding about twenty possums asleep in the crowns of the trees. This meant that, come night time, the possums would be unable to get down the trees to feed and so would be condemned to starve to death or die of dehydration. If, in desperation, they jumped from a great height they could be killed or badly injured. Likely as not, once on the ground with no place to hide (since most trees are now banded) they would fall victim to dog attack, human cruelty or road kill.

Members and friends of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) called a commercial wildlife rescue service to come to the Gardens to work out how the stranded possums could be rescued. Council refused to engage him and deferred making a decision. On Wednesday night PPL VIC members confirmed that there were, indeed, numbers of desperate possums trapped possible 15 metres or so up in the trees, above the bands.

Next morning, on Thursday 2 August, Council stepped in and ordered Parks officers to inspect the treetops, thus proving us right that there were possums trapped there. Contractors then reinstalled the metal chutes on the trees to allow possums access to the ground and food that night. Had PPL VIC not intervened then Council would have simply left the possums to die stranded in the treetops.

Julianne Bell PPL VIC Secretary comments: "Last year Port Phillip Mayor Janet Bolitho announced that Council had employed a consultant to work out a 'humane' way to exterminate the tiny colony of possums, supposedly guilty of chewing palm fronds and damaging trees. In our opinion installation of the consultant's Heath Robinson contraptions, consisting of a unique arrangement of monster steel bands with access chutes and traps, has proved a major bureaucratic bungle being vastly expensive, completely unnecessary and exceptionally cruel. Also in our view the project is illegal under the Wildlife Protection Act 1975 and possibly under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985. The Mayor and Councillors may imagine that the trapped possums are spirited away and euthanased quietly. But ASU members have recently refused to handle possums and local vets have denied any involvement. The tragedy is that while Melbourne City Council promotes possum spotting tours in the Fitzroy and Treasury Gardens, Port Phillip Council is attempting to exterminate the Catani Gardens possums, which draw hundreds if not thousands of tourists a year."

Lucy Fairley, a British tourist (name and details can be supplied) wants to be on record as saying: "As a holidaymaker from England, I was thrilled to read in my guide about feeding possums in Melbourne's parks. My daughter and I visited a number of parks at dusk and finally struck lucky in Catani Gardens. There were a handful of lively and almost tame possums - they even let us stroke them; it was the highlight of my holiday. I was struck dumb when I learnt of the council's eradication plans; how they had already killed a number of possums and were on the point of rounding up and murdering these last few, defenceless animals. I am outraged - I cannot believe in such barbarous and short-sighted behaviour. Just to think of the tourist potential the council were ignoring - they should be writing to guide books to publicise their asset, instead of persecuting these beautiful animals... I, for one, would find Melbourne a far less attractive place to visit without this compelling attraction and my estimation of Australians (certainly of council officers) would be significantly reduced if the possums were to be exterminated."

Note that Tourism Minister Tim Holding has declined an invitation to visit the Catani Gardens and over the past few months has been, reportedly, too busy to meet PPL VIC representatives.

Media contact:
Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (PPL VIC)
www.protectorsofpubliclandsvic.com
03 98184114 or mobile 0408022408 or
Jill Quirk (PPL VIC) on 03 95097429 or 040 09742927.

Local Government specialist demolishes case for amalgamations

Sat, 2007-08-04 00:00 by James Sinnamon

The article below was adapted from a post made to Online Opinion in response to an article "An end to big fish in small, shallow ponds" by Dr Paul Reynolds, Lecturer in Australian Politics and Australian Political behaviour at the University of Queensland

The argument in favour of forced amalgamations has been comprehensively demolished by, amongst others, Professor Brian Dollery of the University of New England in an interview on ABC Radio National's Bush Telegraph of 31 July (transcript not available but audio file can be downloaded from web site for another three weeks). In an article "Counting the Merger Costs" (see below) printed in the Courier Mail on the same day, he demonstrtated that the report from the the Local Government Reform Commission was seriously flawed.

He noted that the Local Government 'Reform' Commission handed down its conclusion just two months after submissions were closed on 25 May.

"In other words, we are expected to believe that in a mere two months it was able to consider tens of thousands of pages of submissions, carefully weigh in the evidence and deliver sound policy advice. ...

"It is hardly surprising that the final report is seriously deficient in several respects."

These include:

no evaluation of the costs of alternative courses of action,
No attempt to determine the costs attached to amalgamation and the implementation of structural reform (admitted on page 38, chapter 3 of the report)
No account taken of experiences of amalgamation in Victoria, South Australia or Victoria, nor evidence from Canada, nor the 2007 Lyons report into British local Government.

Professor Dollery concludes :

"Evidence-free policy-making of this kind is alarming. State Government politicians should ask themselves a simple question before embarking on a potentially destructive forced amalgamation program.

"Why do financial problems persist in other Australian states that have already compulsorily amalgamated local councils if amalgamation is indeed a silver bullet for all the ills of local government?"

For further information, visit www.une.edu.au/clg, www.localdemocracy.com.au, www.friendsofnoosa.com.au, /NoForcedAmalgamations

Counting cost of mergers

Article from: The Courier-Mail. Also available as PDF document at www.localdemocracy.com.au
July 31, 2007 12:00am

ON Friday, the Queensland Local Government Reform Commission released its report on structural reform of local councils.

The commission recommended a radical plan that would result in the most drastic forced amalgamation of local councils in Queensland history.

If the recommendations are implemented by the State Government, it would see the number of local councils compulsorily reduced to less than half their current number.

When it is noted that no changes at all are proposed to 37 councils, then the extreme nature of the commission is placed in even greater relief.

Given the drastic nature of the commission's recommendations, the handing down of its report heralds a new phase in the struggle for local democracy in Queensland. Whether the State Government actually implements all or some of the amalgamation proposals will depend in large measure on the intensity of popular feeling against forced amalgamation.

The distressing nature of the wholesale program of compulsory mergers is underlined when we consider that the commission arrived at its conclusions just two months after submissions closed on May 25. In other words, we are expected to believe that in a mere two months it was able to consider tens of thousands of pages of submissions, carefully weigh the evidence and then deliver sound policy advice.

Given the time available to the commission and the volume of material to be considered, superhuman effort would have been required to produce sensible policy to advance the interests of Queensland local government.

It is hardly surprising that the final report is seriously deficient in several respects.

For example, rational evaluation of economic and social policy requires a careful assessment of the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action. The public will be dismayed to learn that the commission made no attempt to determine the costs attached to amalgamation and the implantation of structural reform. This is all the more distressing when it is well-known both in Australia and abroad that forced amalgamation always imposes substantial costs even in the process of amalgamating several councils into a larger organisation.

The commission itself recognises that "there are costs inherent in amalgamations".

But in the next breath admits that "it has not attempted to quantify these costs in respect of the recommendations it makes" (Chapter 3, P38).

The only factual "evidence" on the costs of forced amalgamation considered by the commission derived from a few amalgamations in Queensland in the 1990s as well as the submissions of four councils under the now defunct Size, Shape and Sustainability process abandoned by the State Government. No account is taken of experience in Victoria, South Australia and NSW, all of which have undergone amalgamation. Nor is any of the extensive evidence from Canada, the 2007 Lyons Report into British local government, and the substantial American literature even mentioned.

To add insult to injury, by rhetorical sleight of hand the commission then goes on to assert that any costs that do eventuate will depend on the councils themselves rather than forced amalgamation.

Evidence-free policy making of this kind is alarming. State Government politicians should ask themselves a simple question before embarking on a potentially destructive forced amalgamation program.

Why do financial problems persist in other Australian states that have already compulsorily amalgamated local councils if amalgamation is indeed a silver bullet for all the ills of local government?

Professor Brian Dollery is director of the Centre for Local Government, University of New England

Your help needed to prosecute for wildlife massacre in Northern NSW

Thu, 2007-08-02 14:06 by Sheila Newman

End Australian culture of contempt for wildlife

Tell www.candobetter.org of outstanding cases and neglect by government departments. Register, Log in and Write. Under current law people who harm protected habitat and species are criminals. Yet they almost always go unprosecuted, despite the widespread support for wildlife among the common people of Australia.

Political pressure needed for Prosecution for massacre of Wildlife

Wildlife activist, David Pinson, (stickeebatz|AT|gmail.com); FFICN|AT|yahoogroups.com.au;
needs help to obtain prosecution against clearing of endangered ecological community and flying-fox habitat and habitat for other threatened species at Dulguigan, near Murwillumbah, in northern NSW. See details below.

Put politicians' names to the crime: Make them enforce the law

Public pressure needs to be placed on the NSW and Commonwealth Departments responsible for prosecution and enforcement of laws to protect wildlife and habitat in this case as in many others. Flying foxes are, of course, not the only animals suffering from the negligence of our government towards protecting native wildlife from cruelty and outright extermination and extinction.

Politicians’ names: Malcolm Turnbull, Phil Koperberg, Morris Iemma, Justine Elliot. Contact details end this article.

Education: See here on youtube for an educational film about a flying fox featuring wildlife carer, Julia Buch.

The crime

Two hectares of endangered Swamp Sclerophyll ecological community has been cleared on private property. This vegetation was the roosting habitat for about 6,400 (December 2006 count) Grey-headed flying-foxes and Black flying-foxes (both of whom are listed as vulnerable species in NSW), and functioned as a maternity site.

Apparently evidence exists to think that the vegetation was cleared in order to get rid of the flying-fox camp.

The suspects

There appears to be a trail in records of complaints from human residents on the property or properties about the presence of flying-foxes; anti-flying-fox meetings held regularly; intervention by the local DECC ranger to stop further instances of purposeful harassment of the flying fox population with loud noise in 2006, and two other instances of land-clearing of ‘bat camp’ habitat without permits in the Tweed area. These took place in 2004 at the Dallis Park colony and at the Chinderah Road camp.

Apart from prosecuting the perpetrators of this damage to local and aggregate national and international biodiversity and natural amenity caused by the Dulguigan clearing, the Department should be reinforcing protection of wildlife and their habitat against further harassment and destruction. Members of Parliament need to come out in force to ensure that the law is visibly and seriously enforced to condemn cheap contempt for wildlife of all kinds, also bearing in mind that land-clearing, as well as being cruel, leads to soil destruction and carbon-gas emissions increase, which are of great public concern.

The Laws

The clearing probably constitutes breaches of the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974 - harming a threatened species or endangered ecological community (s 118A); and damage to the habitat of threatened species (s 118D)-and the Native Vegetation Act 2003-clearing of remnant vegetation (being protected native vegetation) without approval (s 12). This clearing may also breach the EPBC act 1999.

Role of Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC)

DECC has been requested to fully investigate and seek to have the perpetrators punished sufficiently to deter others and required to revegetate the area cleared.

DECC has also been asked to properly implement their policy on management of flying-fox camps by undertaking education and media campaigns to foster better understanding of flying-foxes and support for their conservation.

DECC has been requested to explain why, despite legislation, illegal acts of habitat clearance for threatened species such as this, are still going un-prosecuted.

Information regarding the clearing, and current state of investigation into the matter can be obtained from DECC offices in Murwillumbah and Grafton.

Why humans should love and protect flying foxes and all wildlife

Flying foxes, as well as being delightful social animals with complex societies, are also, like birds, major agents of soil renewal through their rich droppings. (So are all other wildlife forms, including the huge contribution of soil organisms, but the avian creatures have a particular role to play which human beings cannot reproduce.) The work of such animals is far more efficient and effective than any modern fertilizer dissemination. Unfortunately it is free and, in our commercially focused society, anything free generates contempt and disbelief about its benefits.

Wildlife population control

Just about everything humans are doing to regulate wildlife populations of other animals as well as flying foxes is making matters worse. Flying foxes like all animals are capable of regulating their own populations if those populations are not fragmented. Increasing fragmentation leads to disorganization of population spacing algorithms, leading to opportunistic small-scale ‘plagues’ and then busts, with the final outcome being extinction. These animals need large protected areas and human economies are dysfunctional if they cannot perform without destroying such areas; we need to integrate with the local biodiversity, not expect them to integrate with us. We are impoverished culturally by our inability to enjoy the wildlife around us. And the cruelty involved depraves us.

Farming needs to be adapted locally to cooperate with these populations. The benefit of flying fox guano as with bird guano needs to be understood. See Montgomery, D., Dirt, The Erosion of Civilisations, UCP, Berkley, 2007, pp 185-88. For some literature to start with on population spacing, apart from my own research in progress, which I intend to make available at candobetter.org/sheila soon, see, for instance: Jerry .O. Wolff, “Density-dependence and the socioecology of space use in rodents,” Department of Biology, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA. Note, however, that flying foxes are not rodents.:-)]

Sheila Newman
Vice President, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian Branch
SPA Vic is a member of the Coalition for Wildlife Corridors see www.awpc.org.au

Politicians' Contact details

Malcolm Turnbull M.P. - Federal Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
malcolm.turnbull.MP|AT|aph.gov.au,
PO Box 1840, Bondi Junction NSW 1355
PO Box 1840, Bondi Junction NSW 1355;

The Hon. Phil Koperberg M.P.
- NSW Minister - Department of Environment and Climate Change
office|AT|koperberg.minister.nsw.gov.au
Postal Address: PO BOX A290 , SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1232;

The Hon. Morris Iemma M.P. - NSW Premier thepremier|AT|www.nsw.gov.au Governor Macquarie Tower. Level 40, 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY NSW 2000

The Hon. Justine Elliott M.P. - member for Richmond - House of Representatives
Justine.Elliot.MP|AT|aph.gov.au
Electorate Office Postal Address: PO Box 6996. Tweed Heads South NSW 2486

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Queensland Greens Media Release - 19 September 2007

Topic:

Beach protest was simply shocking

Topic:

Queensland Greens Media Release - 13 September 2007

The Story so Far ...

But wait... this is not the end of the Story ...

A short time passes and we find our Brave Warriors back at the Round Table

The Moral... If I can use that term in such esteemed company?

Cate Molloy exposes amalgamation scam - media release, 7 Sep 07

Sustainable Population Australia Media Release, 5 Sep 2007

Media Release, 5 Sep 2007

Topic:

Topic:

Smashing Capitalism

by Barbara Ehrenreich

Topic:

Recommendations:

Media Release

Update, 16 August 07

Topic:

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

MEDIA RELEASE

Pages

Tags in Topic

Help save injured wildlife

Recent comments