democracy alert

Victoria Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.

The Council’s intention is to:

sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.

In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.

Dear Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. members and friends

Here is a message from the Friends of the Queen Victoria Market. (PPL VIC is a great supporter) "You are invited to a meeting which is about building a community campaign with market traders, its customers, the wider community and the NUW (National Union of Workers) to protect the Vic Market, its people and its history. See https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket. where you will find the flier and good background on the issues. The Friends of QVM Facebook page is a community page and everyone who is interested is welcome."

Meeting details are:

Date & time: Wednesday 20 July at 10.30am
Venue: Victorian Trades Hall Council Chambers, Cnr Lygon and Victoria Streets, Carlton
Location: Melways ref: Map 2B F12, Trams along Victoria and Swanston Sts, Buses along Lygon & Swanston Streets
Contact: Mary-Lou Howie M 0401 811 893
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket

The message from Friends of QVM continues: Just in case you don’t follow the Friends of Queen Victoria Market Facebook page which I co- author and now has a huge following, the Vic Market traders and supporters are having a big meeting at Trades Hall this Wednesday at 10:30 am.

As you must be aware, the Vic Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.

The Council’s intention is to:

sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.

In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.

The Lord Mayor has said this is the largest project ever undertaken by the City of Melbourne and an implementation strategy is now in place, yet no comprehensive plans detailing what is to be implemented has ever been revealed to the public.

Friends of Queen Victoria Market have a healthy readership of around 2,000 - 5,000+ people who want the market to continue as a sustainable, functioning shopping space for all people in Melbourne. We support revitalisation of the market and believe in proper independent consultation that leads to appropriate change, always mindful of QVM’s history, heritage and importance to our community.

If you are available, I would love to see you at Trades Hall on Wednesday. Cheers, Mary-Lou Howie M: 0401 811 893

Circulated by Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.PO Box 197 Parkville 3052 Mobile 0408022408

At the Planning Backlash and Boroondara Residents Action Group "Mad as Hell event" in Camberwell on Sunday 29th May, 2016, BRAG introduced the following draft Resident's Rights Bill. To indicate your support please email drostmary[AT]gmail.com. Among other things it calls for the setting of population growth targets within OECD averages. It thus nails a continuing problem of the moving target in previous population policy claims. Australia lacks a civil rights code, unlike Europe. Our civil rights used to be implicit in our publicly owned resources and services, like water, Telecom, and power. This draft Residents' Bill of Rights is truly impressive in its ability to identify gaps in Australian residents' rights.

Residents' Bill of Rights

We, the current residents of Melbourne, country and coastal areas of Victoria, call on the government and opposition at all levels to act to protect our homes, communities and cities from over-development.

WE REJECT:

• The current trend of excessive population growth through the ever increasing levels of immigration.
• The excessive influence of vested interests and lobby groups upon residential planning and government decision making.
• The increasing densification of residential areas and the consequent impact on our infrastructure without commensurate infrastructure upgrades at all levels.
• The continual changes to planning law and regulations that provides no certainty for the peaceful enjoyment of our neighbourhoods by the current and future residents.
• The continual urban sprawl into Melbourne’s green fringe and farming land.

We DEMAND:

• Population growth targets to be limited to sustainable levels based on OECD averages which is currently around 0.63%. (Australia’s rate of growth is currently around 1.7% ).

• Infrastructure be upgraded to meet current needs and kept ahead of requirements to meet our cities population growth requirements.

• A bipartisan planning environment that provides certainty and protects residential areas against densification in any form.

• Councils to be the sole “responsible Authority” for issuing planning permits and building permits.

• VCAT’s role to be confined to resolution of legal planning disputes and ensuring that lawful planning regulations are met.

• FIRB rules and penalties designed and strictly applied to prevent destruction of existing housing stock and neighbourhood character by foreign nationals.

• Expansion and development of regional cities and associated infrastructure to support population growth and lifestyle quality.

• Developer donations be deemed illegal with mandatory disqualification, forfeiture, or dismissal from or of any current or future development.

• Protection of current open space and tree canopy with requirement to retain or replace vegetation on all new or redevelopment sites.

• Government, at all levels, legally required to assess and protect the interests of residents ahead of developers’ interests.

• All planning committees and reference groups must have at reasonable resident representation.

• Legislate to ensure permits can be refused where a poll of residents/owners living within 300m radius of the proposed development indicates objection by the majority of existing residents/owners.

• A national uniform code be developed to define minimum dwelling size, minimum open space per bedroom and maximum occupancy limits.

• Enforceable minimum Victorian building standards regulations administered by an independent authority.

• Any breach of a planning permit or building standards should result in a prosecution by the relevant authority or the State or local Government to ensure proper rectification

• Developers to meet infrastructure costs necessary for new developments including drainage, sewage, water supply, telecommunications, gas and electricity.

• Developers to be required to contribute to a general community/Council infrastructure fund, , based on number of bedrooms or estimated improved value of the property.

• Neighbourhood character, architecture and heritage requirements to be met by every new residential development.

• Establishment and enforcement of resident and visitor car parking standards, for new multi-dwelling developments, at the rate of 0.75 spaces per bedroom, for residents and 0.25 spaces for visitors.

• Character protection for heritage and traditional local shopping strips.

Published & authorized by PLANNING BACKLASH, on behalf of it’s 250
supporting residents' groups in Melbourne, country & coastal areas.
PO Box 1034 Camberwell, Vic. 3124

Migration is part of our collective history, but Europe’s political leaders are still failing completely to address widespread public concern over the flood of migrants now storming Europe’s borders. The consequences of these pressures will have profound impacts.

Unable to reach rational solutions beyond discussing how many each member state should be obliged to take, bribing African countries to take back their own citizens who don’t qualify as refugees and now paying Turkey to take back illegals bound for Greece, while taking a similar quota of Syrians from Turkey, are inadequate responses. Our leaders are moving into systemic chaos, where the Human Rights Act, has spawned a people-trafficking industry that is endangering our security and running rings around governments at taxpayers’ expense. It is not fit for purpose and needs reform. Without leaving the EU, the UK could suspend and redraw the act with our European partners, who all have much to gain from a more sensible approach.

In Britain, the Government, under Labour, first lost control of immigration and then tried to spin the idea that a large influx of people is vital to our interests. Despite attempts at reforms, the system is still failing. Legal migration in to the UK has hit record levels - up 40 per cent on 2014, according to the Office for National Statistics. Nearly 100,000 illegals were detected trying to enter the UK in 2015, while the EU is receiving thousands of illegal migrants a day – triple the rate last year.

The situation has been escalating for years, but after German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand moral gesture to take in 800,000 ‘refugees’ a year in response to the photo of a drowned boy on a Turkish beach and then demand other EU states take their share, it has ignited the hopes of millions more to settle in Europe. Now barbed wire borders are being erected in the heart of Europe, destroying the ideal of free movement.

Described as refugees or just ‘migrants’, as though there has merely been some bureaucratic error in their status, the asylum lobby and much of the media are cheerleading the appeal for public sympathy as a tragic human interest story. But this terrorist infiltrated people-smuggling led invasion, facilitated by EU governments, presents a huge challenge from failing states with exploding populations and self-inflicted turf wars.

Generous policies in Sweden and Germany are enabling thousands of non-EU migrants and illegals to settle legally there and then move to other member states as internal EU migrants. Over 1.2 million have claimed asylum in 2015. Our politicians consistently ignore this back door impact.

Sweden has been receiving up to 2000 unaccompanied minors a week in late 2015, nearly a third of its migrant influx, who can then have their families flown in to join them. Most were males giving their age as 16 or 17 but receiving groups say many appear much older. According to Statistics Sweden, 50 per cent of refugees are not in work seven years after arriving in the country. Even after 15 years, 40 per cent are still on welfare without a job – a major drain on the country’s welfare system.

Refugee lobbyists say it is the moral duty of Western countries to absorb these migrants. Do the media and politicians seriously think that Europe can take in the populations of sub-Saharan Africa and beyond? When will the line be drawn? All UK parties are well aware of the mounting pressures on housing, schools and health services, but don’t like to talk about it. Or the 25-50 per cent of young people in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece who don’t have a job. So too, they should be aware of the Parliamentary report in 2008 that the large rise in legal immigration to the UK had virtually no net economic gain for the country. Nor do we need high immigration to counter a temporary rise in ageing populations. Ever more migrants also get old and then need support.

The Government talks about skilled immigrants Britain needs, but skilled immigrants account for only 20% of total non-EU immigrants in Britain and many actually do unskilled work when they get here.

Proposals to cap numbers will barely touch the scale of the true problem - a permanent population swelling so quickly by other immigration pathways, including a generous interpretation of family reunion from outside the EU that is adding to the pressures on our environment and food security.

Australia is often cited by UK politicians as a model immigration system, but its population just hit 24 million– 17 years earlier than expected. With net overseas migration contributing 53 per cent to total population growth, the population is now set to double every 50 years. This in an arid continent with only six per cent of the land able to grow crops.

Europe’s growing immigration crisis
In 1950, the countries that later constituted the EU-27 had a population of 370 million. By 2010 it topped 500 million - equivalent to absorbing the inhabitants of another present-day France and Britain combined. By January 2015 Eurostat figures show the population was 508.2 million - up 1.3 million from the previous year, with the majority of 1.1m a result of net legal immigration into the EU.

Add to this the rapidly growing number of illegals – with over 1.2 million detected in 2015 and many more entering undetected, according to the EU borders agency, Frontex.

Today, only Syria currently has an acute refugee crisis, but to avert mounting chaos and retain the fabric of the EU, we have to stop the lure of a gateway to permanent citizenship to millions. People in Europe might be more reassured if irregular migrants eligible for asylum were offered temporary support and then returned to their countries when the crisis resolved. Many of those who claimed asylum from countries like Somalia and Iraq go back for extended holidays, but the claims for asylum continue. Iraqi Airways now operates four flights a week from the UK to facilitate demand for vacations back home. Yet Iraqis are in the top ten asylum applications to the UK in 2015,

Also in the list are Nigeria – touted as Africa’s fasted growing economy and other democratic countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and even Albania – now 25 years since it became a European democracy. Eritrea is top of the list, supposedly linked to harsh national service. What is going on? International pressure should sort this out, not expect resettlement.

Part of the problem is that EU countries don’t have repatriation agreements with many countries involved, but this could be remedied quite simply, as just about all the sender countries in Africa and many in Asia are recipients of generous Western aid. We need to use this leverage. Several countries, like Senegal, condone exporting people in the hope they will reach Europe, find work and send back remittances.

Global leaders need to be focused on real solutions and more effective regional aid in all these fragile states as well as engaging more constructively with Russia, Iran and countries in the region to bring about positive outcomes. You can help far more people cost effectively in nearby protected areas than import millions into high-cost West European countries. Sweden is now having to spend its foreign aid budget on trying to deal with new migrant arrivals.

The current level of UK immigration and increasing birth rates will require building the equivalent of a new Manchester every year. It is little wonder we have a housing crisis. How can we possibly accommodate this and claim it is sustainable?

In 1998, the Office for National Statistics predicted that the UK population would rise to 65m by 2051. We’re already there! Now they say it could reach 80 million by 2040, mostly as a result of immigration.

David Cameron promises a review of welfare benefits for EU migrants but equally, we need to look at the pull factors for illegals – many openly piling up in Calais attempting to cross to the UK. The EU Commission says it is the responsibility of each Member State to set the rules for welfare support.

We need urgent action to address these issues and clear shared rules that would be strict enough to discourage ineligible people from attempting dangerous journeys. The growing cost to communities of accommodating large-scale inflows of people, in a now crowded world, raises many challenging questions. This is not a left or right issue or racist. It is about global social and environmental sustainability.

Here is an update on current overdevelopment trends in Melbourne, by Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash, with references to height and density, the Property Council of Australia, safety and a new activist group, Victorian Building Action Group.

Well finally the government say they are going to limit building heights in the city.   Bit too late as far as I  can see.  Imagine  that  we have higher density in our city than New York or Hong Kong!!!!!.   And they also say they are going to consult with developers and residents. Can you imagine what the developers will be saying? Let us see if the government has the courage to do it against the wishes of developers. But it seems they are not setting height limits, only density.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-city-height-limits-to-hit-new-ceiling-20160425-goec15

The Property Council at it again. They are now demanding that Councils hand over land for development.    What a cheek.   Peoples rates buy the land that is used for car parking and the land is needed.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/property/councils-sitting-on-550m-worth-of-development-sites-suitable-for-housing-20160426-gof9yv.html

Well, banks are stopping lending to foreign buyers  - that is good news and in another item, the government are increasing the tax on foreign buyers. Still not high enough tax to be a deterrent. Not like smart Singapore who put on a 20% tax, and that stopped it.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/westpac-stops-lending-to-foreign-property-investors-20160427-gofza6.html

There was recently news of the wall collapse. Now there's another one. Here is the link.You might also like to look at the Facebook of the Victorian Building Action Group, whose issue is the shonky building going on in Victoria and what it is doing to people.

Here is some information on the wall collapse:

These ‘accidents’ are a daily occurrence – here are two on one day!

Re the wall collapse – here are two links: (1.) The Age 20 April 2016: ‘Wall collapse: How the system failed’: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wall-collapses-at-north-melbourne-construction-site-20160420-goakg3.html

This has a short video attached.

(2.) 20 April 2016 Wall collapses at North Melbourne building site: WorkSafe on the scene’: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/worksafe-investigates-wall-collapse-in-north-melbourne/7341110

Our record on safety, just like our record on building, is worse every day!

To keep up-to-date, Victorian Building Action Group Facebook
at:https://www.facebook.com/vicbuildingactiongroup/

Video and text of Sheila Newman's speech at the Animal Justice Party's event, "Policy basis for Kangaroo treatment in the ACT," 5 April 2016: Harvesting, damage mitigation and culling probably actually accelerate population growth in roos because the smaller ones survive and adapt by sexually maturing earlier - which speeds up fertility turnover. Since 2003 DNA studies have shown that ACT and southern NSW roos, both male and female, migrate at significant rates and for longer distances than the ACT model assumes. Migration has probably been mistaken for fertility, rendering ACT roo counts unreliable and invalid. The ACT needs to stop culling and widen its research base to consider various genetically based algorithms that naturally restrain fertility opportunities in kangaroos.

Examples include separate gender pathways, with 'sexual segregation' where male and female populations live apart. It is likely that the stable presence of mature dominant males and females in family and mob organisation inhibits sexual maturity and activity as has been shown in studies of other species, such as macaques and superb fairy wrens (the latter cooperative breeders). In humans, girls brought up with step-fathers who came late to the family were more likely to mature sexually earlier due to absence of Westermarck Effect.)

Planned wildlife corridors need to be made safe and long-term viable to cope with people, car and kangaroo population movements.

Canberra is pursuing a policy of rapid population growth, mostly through invited economic immigration.

Canberra's population problem

In June 2016 ACT - South West Australian Capital Territory was the fastest growing area in Australia and grew by 127.3%. (ABS http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3218.0)
 
Canberra’s population could increase to 904,000 by 2061 according to new projections released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It's not inevitable, but the government would like you to believe it is.
 
Predicting a population growth of at least 98 per cent within 50 years, ACT population projections for 2061 suggest that the Australian Capital Territory population could exceed Tasmania's population by 2038.

But some think that the ACT's biggest problem is its kangaroo population

It's not the new suburbs, the new roads, the new airport, the additional schools, hospitals, houses, and all the new cars that threaten Canberra's grasslands: it's the eastern grey kangaroos.

It seems that it is better to have cattle in Canberra's nature parks than kangaroos.

Ecological cattle grazing is now being trialed. Cattle can be more easily moved than kangaroos. (Fletcher, Senior Ecologist, communication to P. Machin.)

Although, Fletcher had previously described the devastation cattle made to grass cover in no uncertain terms: "Fletcher Phd: p.37. “70 pregnant cows and four bulls grazed for ten weeks at Tidbinbilla after a bushfire in January 2003 (Section 3.5.1). Prior to their arrival, there had been an atypical abundance of pasture due to the death of almost half of the Tidbinbilla kangaroos in the bushfire, but by the time the cattle were removed, the Tidbinbilla pasture had been reduced to the lowest herbage mass recorded on any site during the study.”
"

ACT Kangaroo Management Policy works on a model that all creatures maximize their population growth and that Canberra's roos are riding an expansive curve which can only be capped by massive frequent culls. A stated fear is that they will otherwise graze and drastically modify biodiversity of Canberra's grasslands. Another is that roos need periodically to be shot so as to save them from starving to death.

Why culling is better than harvesting (ACT Senior Ecologist, Don Fletcher)

"[…] the model indicates that commercial harvesting (currently under trial in the region, at the maximum level allowed, results in a sustainable harvest of kangaroos, but does not increase the herbage mass, and only slightly reduces the frequency of crashes when herbage mass falls to low levels. (To demonstrate this with an ecological experiment would require an extremely large investment of research effort.)

However, an alternative 'national park damage mitigation' formula, which holds kangaroo density to about 1 ha -1 , is predicted to increase herbage mass considerably and to reduce the frequency of crashes in herbage mass, but these effects would be achieved at the cost of having to shoot large numbers of kangaroos." (Fletcher Phd: Population dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands, 2006, p. vi.)

The model and the reality

The ACT Roo Management model is one of high fertility sedentary populations that rarely migrate, grazing grasslands down to the subsoil. But, in his 2006 thesis, p. 237, Senior ACT Kangaroo management ecologist, Donald Fletcher, tested this model and found, to his surprise, that,

"The study did not provide evidence that high densities of kangaroos reduce groundcover to the levels where erosion can accelerate.

Unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in low levels of ground cover. Groundcover had a positive but not significant relationship to kangaroo density, with the highest cover at the wettest site where kangaroo density was highest. Weather has an important influence on groundcover."

"The results from the study as a whole indicate that unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in unacceptably low levels of ground cover." (Fletcher Phd: p.231.

The Kangaroo Migration factor

Since 2003 DNA studies have shown that ACT and southern NSW roos, both male and female, migrate at significant rates and for longer distances than the ACT model assumes. 

Migration has probably been mistaken for fertility, rendering ACT kangaroo counts unreliable and probably invalid.

DNA studies 2003 show migration a strong factor

Zenger et al (2003)[1] found that mitrochondrial DNA samples indicated about 22.61 individuals per generation migrated with a range of 8.17-59.30. In female immigrants the range was 2.73 with a range of 0.60-12.16. Although females demonstrate smaller migration rates compared to the sexes combined, the values are still comparatively high. Analysis across NSW showed populations separated by up to about 230km had equivalent numbers of close relatives when compared to populations only about 20km apart.

This contradicted field study opinion that migration was low in eastern grey kangaroos, and especially low in females in the ACT. Tidbinbilla (a Canberra nature park studied by Fletcher) featured in the Zenger et al study.

Zenger MtDNA findings contrary to Migration views in Fletcher thesis

"Throughout their lives eastern grey kangaroos are relatively sedentary (Johnson 1989) compared to red kangaroos (Priddel 1987). A partly concurrent study of eastern grey kangaroo habitat use and movements on the Googong and Tidbinbilla sites found the eastern grey kangaroos on these sites were sedentary in all seasons (minimum convex polygon mean size 0.43 km 2 ± 0.06 SE and 0.61 km 2 ± 0.08 respectively; Viggers and Hearn 2005). Kangaroos were not radio tracked at Gudgenby but my observations suggest there is no more movement of eastern grey kangaroos on and off the site there than at Tidbinbilla. Thus it is likely there was little net movement of kangaroos on and off the study sites." (Fletcher, page v.)

Paradoxical impact of Culls, kills and Harvests

Harvesting, damage mitigation and culling probably actually accelerate population growth in roos because the smaller ones survive and adapt by sexually maturing earlier - which speeds up fertility turnover.

Harvested stock grow smaller, breed earlier, faster

"Smaller, earlier breeding genetic stock tend to escape harvesting". See, e.g. J.J. Poosa, A. Brannstrom, U. Dieckmann, “Harvest-induced maturation evolution under different life-history trade-offs and harvesting regimes.” (See note for more literature on this.)[2]

Fletcher, on estimates of biomass consumption per roo allows for large variations in harvested populations vs wild populations.

"How big are eastern grey kangaroos?
The mean live weight of eastern grey kangaroos taken from the unshot population at Tidbinbilla was 29 kg – smaller than the 35 kg mean live weight assumed in the Kinchega kangaroo study (Caughley et al. 1987). Based on the size relationship between shot and unshot populations of kangaroos in South Australia and Queensland (Grigg 2000), the mean size of eastern grey kangaroos in equivalent shot populations was predicted to be 17 kg live weight. The minimum dressed size accepted by operators of commercial chillers is 17 kg, implying that many of the kangaroos in shot populations (on rural properties) in the ACT region are too small to attract commercial shooters."(Fletcher, p.242.)

Culling has a similar effect.

Earlier maturation would contribute to higher population growth rates. What role does harvesting, culling and farm mitigation killing play in accelerating breeding rates?

“Smaller, eat less, more numerous, more fecund", reproduce earlier

“The management implications arising from this study are numerous and a full account would require a separate report. As one example, kangaroos in these temperate grasslands are on average smaller, eat less, are more numerous, and are more fecund, than would be predicted
from other studies (e.g. Caughley et al. 1987). Thus the benefit of shooting each kangaroo, in terms of grass production, is less, or, in other words, more kangaroos have to be shot to achieve a certain level of impact reduction, and the population will recover more quickly, than would have been predicted prior to this study.” (Fletcher, p245.)

Kangaroos shot in Tidbinbilla and low weight in shot populations

“The mean live weight of eastern grey kangaroos in high density populations can be estimated from the weights of a sample of 332 kangaroos shot at Tidbinbilla in June 1997 (Graeme Coulson, personal communication, 2003) to be 29 kg. (That is an adjustment of the actual mean liveweight of the shot sample, 26.4 kg, to allow for seasonal effects, as explained in Discussion. Kangaroos in shot populations, such as on grazing properties, are likely to be smaller due to selective harvesting, also explained in Discussion).”(Fletcher p.242.)

Wider Research Base needed

In my view, the ACT needs to stop culling and widen its research base to consider encouraging various genetically based behaviours that naturally restrain fertility opportunities in roos.

Known examples include

incest avoidance, which limits breeding unless animals can disperse to their own territory. [3]
Sexual segregation and gender pathways, where male and female populations live apart. 

Incest avoidance as a spatial limiter of breeding opportunity

Many examples of suppressed maturity or breeding in both males and females close by related adults in many species. (Sheila Newman, Demography Territory Law: Rules of animal and human populations, Countershock Press, 2013, chapter 3.) (Paperback edition and Kindle edition.)

In kangaroos male sexual dominance and monopolisation of females is a very obvious trait. (The effect of dominant close females on female maturation is less known and should be investigated as it has been in other species).

Where large males and females are removed from mobs, these limiting population effects are also removed. What happens then?

Kinship rules and incest avoidance

The following diagram is of human kinship rules, however similar patterns of incest avoidance occur in other species, and in kangaroos. The diagram for humans is split into family and in-laws and sets out some typical rules for incest avoidance in low fertility environments - central Australia and mountainous South Korea. The rules for inlaws are reproduced back to front to demonstrate a mirror-like effect. The person in the top left corner, 'You" may not conceive/marry any of the people in the black squares. That leaves only eight possible mates - as long as they are not already married. Imagine how hard it would be to find a wife or husband under these circumstances in a sparsely populated society of small clans that only travelled on foot, without cars, planes or boats. In a more fertile environment, the rules of incest avoidance are usually much less strict, as in Leviticus, where people may marry their first cousins - giving much greater fertility opportunities, even without the benefit of modern transport. For more about this and how it affects human economies see: "Overpopulation: Endogamy,Exogamy and fertility opportunity theory"

The following two diagrams are from Zenger et al (2003).
They show the regions from which their eastern grey kangaroo DNA samples were taken, and they give a 'family tree' of roo DNA diversity, which shows greatly decreased diversity in north NSW and in Queensland. The authors could find no explanation for this.

Possible explanation for decreased Mt DNA in Queensland & Northern NSW

Harvesting has gone on for a long time in these regions. We know it is associated with marked size decrease. It seems likely that it is also associated with earlier sexual maturity. Consider the possibility that, as well as size decrease and earlier sexual maturation in harvested populations, the decrease in genetic diversity present in those populations may be due to inbreeding resulting from loss of family structure and associated incest avoidance, with decreased migration as small early maturing roos settle for their siblings. There seems little will to investigate this. Although there is some literature, it is very limited. (See note [2].)

Sexual Segregation/Gender pathways

Review of Scientific Literature Relevant to the Commercial Harvest Management of Kangaroos http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/110641Kangaroolitreview.pdf

“Sexual segregation is a phenomenon seen in many species, with segregation occurring along behavioural or ecological dimensions. Sexual segregation in western grey and red kangaroos in semi - arid Victoria has been the subject of intensive investigations since the last review.

[…] MacFarlane and Coulson (2005) investigated the effects of mating activity, group […] composition, spatial distribution and habitat selection on sexual segregation in western grey and red kangaroos. The synchrony and timing of mating activity was seen to influence the magnitude and timing of social segregation in these species, with mixed sex groups predominating during the breeding season. …

… Spatial segregation and habitat segregation were also seen. Although the magnitude of these types of segregation were weaker, they were both still significantly influenced by synchrony and timing of breeding.

Coulson et al. (2006) discussed sexual segregation at three levels (habitat, social and dietary) and confirmed that both size and sex influence segregation.

MacFarlane and Coulson (2009) showed that the need for males to maintain contact with other males (perhaps to develop important fighting skills, evaluate rivals and establish a dominance hierarchy) might also promote sexual segregation.

Similarly Nave (2002) reported evidence of sexual segregation in eastern grey kangaroos in Victoria.”

What are the consequences of loss of sex-specific territory?

Years ago a man who had worked in PNG told me that fertility shot up when churches convinced men and women to cohabit, where previously they had separate land and houses.

What effect could reduction of habitat, forced cohabitation, forcibly changed migration routes and wiped out populations have on male/female kangaroo territory and consequently on fertility opportunities?

How do we know that the female bias (recorded by Fletcher) at Tinbinburra, for instance, is not due to that area being female territory?

Female elder kangaroos

Daughters seem to learn from their mothers to look after joeys. Where female kangaroos are early orphaned their parenting skill may increase risks in joey upbringing. The extraordinary rates of joey mortality may have something to do with this. (See Faces in the Mob for a study of success and failure in raising joeys in one mob.)

In conclusion, regarding ACT Kangaroo management:

It seems that ACT Roo Management Policy and Science:

- Fails to monitor family structure (spatial population monitoring)
- Fails to deal with size reduction, fertility increases probably related to culls etc
- Fails to look at behaviour; notably breeding limitations exerted through incest avoidance/dominance and separate male/female territory
- Underestimates immigration (See Zenger et al)
- Fails to use DNA monitoring to help in the above
- Seems excessively presumptive and mechanistic

NOTES

[1] Zenger et al DNA study 2003: (Heredity (2003) 91, 153–162. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800293, K R Zenger, M D B Eldridge and D W Cooper, "Intraspecific variation, sex-biased dispersal and phylogeography of the eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus)."
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v91/n2/full/6800293a.html)

[2] Harvesting impact literature: Many of these studies arise from fish stocks. Articles quoting studies for kangaroos tend to quote from the same very small amount of literature and to draw equivocal conclusions, frequently paraphrasing each other. Peter T. Hale, "Genetic effects of kangaroo harvesting", Australian Mammalogy 26:75-86 (2004)http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.319.7936&rep=rep1&type=pdf seems to be the main work cited, but relies on studies which Fletcher's Phd calls into question, has little to say about eastern grey kangaroos but seems to infer that they have similar rates of starvation attributed to red kangaroos.

In Review of Scientific Literature Relevant to the Commercial Harvest Management of Kangaroos (2011) http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/110641Kangaroolitreview.pdf  , pp.27-28, after flagging the potential impact of harvesting on kangaroos, the study concludes with a mere opinion that the impact of size and other harvesting selection on kangaroos probably would not be great, on the assumption that the harvested populations are not isolated. This is pretty much as Hale's study (above) concludes. However we know that the harvested populations in northern NSW and Queensland are genetically isolated and impoverished according to Zenger et all (2003) cited above. Furthermore, the review showed it was aware of Zenger et al.

"The last two reviews concluded that there was no evidence, or potential, that commercial harvesting could alter the genetic structure of kangaroo populations at current harvesting levels (Olsen and
Braysher 2000, Olsen and Low 2006). It was perceived that kangaroo populations would have to be
reduced to very low levels for genetic impacts to become significant (Olsen and Braysher 2000).
Moreover, at the time of the last review, it was concluded that there was an absence of theoretical,
empirical and modelled evidence of genetic impacts at current levels of harvesting” (Olsen and Low
2006, p50) and there were few, if any,examples of harvest‐induced body size selection in terrestrial
vertebrates. While there have not been any studies specifically investigating the potential genetic
impacts of harvesting kangaroos since the last review, there have been a large number of original
research and review papers addressing this question in a range of other vertebrate species,
highlighting the perception that the potential genetic consequences of harvesting may be significant

The human harvest of wild animals is generally not a random process, with harvesters often
selecting phenotypically desirable animals, e.g. those with a large body size or elaborate weaponry,
such as antlers. This therefore has the potential to impose selective pressure on wild populations,
which may result in an alteration to population structure by reducing the frequency of these
desirable phenotypes and/or an overall loss of genetic variation (Allendorf et al. 2008). 
Allendorf and Hard (2009) have termed this process “unnatural selection”, which is defined as undesirable changes in an exploited population due to selection against desirable phenotypes. Cited examples of the
effects of selective harvesting on desirable phenotypes include an increase in the number of tuskless elephants (Loxodonta africana) in South Luanga National Park, Zambia, and a decrease in horn size
of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) because of trophy hunting (reviewed in Allendrof and Hard
2009). In the case of bighorn sheep, the observed genotypic and phenotypic effects resulted from
selective harvesting of young males with rapidly growing horns a trait linked with high reproductive
success) before they reached an age where they could achieve high reproductive success (Coltman
et al. 2003).  This study highlights the importance of understanding age-specific trait size, rather
than trait size per se. 

A recent review by Mysterud (2011) discusses the relative importance of various biotic and abiotic
factors that determine the potential for selective pressure from harvesting. In particular, Mysterud
highlights the importance of assessing selective harvesting within the context of management
regulations, hunting methods, animal trait variance, behaviour and abundance. Mysterud argues that in many cultures large mammal harvesting is not expected to produce strong directional
selection in trait size.

 Although many of the factors discussed are of greater relevance to traditional
sport hunting, this review highlights the importance of a number of factors relevant to the
commercial harvesting of kangaroos in Australia. 

There is certainly evidence for selective harvesting of larger/older animals within kangaroo
populations, primarily because the economic performance of kangaroo harvesting enterprises is
highly sensitive to variations in average carcase weight (Stayner 2007). Between 1997 and 2009 the
total harvest in NSW comprised between 70 and 89% males. In the case of wallaroos, the
commercial take is even more strongly biased towards males (almost 90%), because females rarely
reach the minimum size dictated by licence and market conditions (Payne 2011). Despite the
preference for larger males, it was reported that harvesters target a range of sizes above the
minimum, especially when densities are reduced and there are fewer target animals (Payne 2011).
There average weight of harvested animals supports this assertion [(Table 2)]. 

As reported in the last review (Olsen and Low 2006), studies on the potential effects of size-selective harvesting in kangaroos concluded that although there was potential for genetic consequences of
harvesting within a closed population (Tenhumberg et al. 2004), the degree of mobility and
geographic range of genetic populations of kangaroos would be sufficient to ensure that any
localised effects could be countered by immigration (Hale 2004). So, the question remains: does the
recent literature on this topic provide any basis for changing the previous conclusions?

Probably not.

In the big horn sheep example referred to above, the extent of selective harvesting pressure was
probably much stronger than occurs in kangaroo populations. In addition, the population was small,
isolated and had restricted potential for immigration (Coltman et al. 2003), thereby exhibiting
characteristics akin to a closed population. As such, this probably represents a more extreme
example, where prevailing management and biological factors combined to create strong selective
pressure."

Penny Olsen and Tim Low, "Situation Analysis Report, Update on Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological and Economic Impact and Effect of Culling," School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT and 6 Henry Street, Chapel Hill, Queensland, Prepared for the Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel, March 2006

Proceedings of the 2010 RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar: Convergence or conflict: animal welfare in wildlife management and conservation, Tuesday 23 February 2010, CSIRO Discovery Centre, Canberra https://www.rspca.org.au/files/website/The-facts/Science/Scientific-Seminar/2010/SciSem2010-Proceedings.pdf
[3] Family structure/westermarck/incest avoidance/endogamy/exogamy: Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law: Rules of animal and human populations, Countershock Press, 2013, Chapter 3, “CHAPTER 3: The urge to disperse: Why children don’t usually marry their parents.” (Available amazon.com) Examples of incest avoidance citations within:

"Several studies have shown that maternal relatives avoid mating with one another (rhesus macaques: Smith, 1995; red colobus, Procolobus badius temminckii: Starin, 2001; Japanese macaques: Takahata et al., 2002; and see for review: Moore, 1993; van Noordwijk and van Schaik, 2004), 88 but less is known concerning patterns of inbreeding avoidance between paternal relatives (but see Alberts, 1999). In this study, we showed that the probability of paternity by a dominant male decreased when he was related to the dam at R = .5 (the highest possible relatedness coefficient in our study). Smith (1995) showed in rhesus macaques that the intensity of inbreeding avoidance was directly correlated with the closeness of kinship, as in the mandrills studied here. ”

Marie Charpentier, Patricia Peignot, Martine Hossaert-McKey, Olivier Gimenez, Joanna M. Setchell, and E. Jean Wickings., 2005. “Constraints on control: factors influencing reproductive success in male mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx).” Behavioral Ecology 16:614–623]

More reference examples on incest avoidance in multiple species:

Hoier, S., 2003. “Father absence and the age of menarch, A test of four evolutionary models,” Human Nature, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 209–233, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York.
Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Mulder RA, Green DJ, Douvle MC, 2003. Divorce, dispersal and incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. J Anim Ecol 185 72:189–202;
Griffin AS, Pemberton JM, Brotherton PNM, McIlrath G, Gaynor D, Kansky R, O'Riain J, Clutton-Brock TH, 2003. A genetic analysis of breeding success in the cooperative meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Behav Ecol 14:472–480;
Mateo JM, 2003. Kin recognition in ground squirrels and other rodents. J Mammal 84:1163–1181;
Pusey A, Wolf M, 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206;
Stow AJ, Sunnucks P, 2004. Inbreeding avoidance in Cunningham's skinks (Egernia cunninghami) in natural and fragmented habitat. Mol Ecol 13:443–447;
Yu XD, Sun RY, Fang JM, 2004. Effect of kinship on social behaviors in Brandt's voles (Microtus brandti). J Ethol 22:17–22.

Saturday April 23 rd at 1.00pm to 4.00 pm. Venue: Hawthorn Arts Centre, 360 Burwood Rd. Hawthorn Vic 3122. Members and non-members are welcome to attend. Speakers are: Mark Allen, Founder, Population, Permaculture and Planning; Dr Katharine Betts, Population Sociologist, Swinburne University; Hon Kelvin Thomson MP, Environmentalist and high profile sustainable population advocate; Rod Quantock, Environmental activist, Much loved comedian. M.C. SPAVicTas President Michael Bayliss. Audience Q&A and discussion will follow (Free parking behind venue or at nearby Glenferrie Station).

All Welcome

All welcome to come and join in this free public afternoon seminar and discussion!

Speakers

Mark Allen, Founder, Population, Permaculture and Planning
Dr Katharine Betts, Population Sociologist, Swinburne University
Hon Kelvin Thomson MP, Environmentalist and high profile sustainable population advocate
Rod Quantock, Environmental activist, Much loved comedian
M.C. SPAVicTas President Michael Bayliss.

Audience Q&A and discussion will follow

Attitudes and communication in population and the environment
Venue: Hawthorn Arts Centre, 360 Burwood Rd. Hawthorn Vic 3122
Members and non-members are welcome to attend (free parking behind venue or at nearby Glenferrie Station)
www.population.org.au

Further details: Jill Quirk jillq[AT]optusnet.com.au 0409742927

It is just possible that the terrorist attack warnings by both the PM and ASIO head, Duncan Lewis, and the announcement of a hefty hike in defence spending was just a coincidence. But for those cynics who claim otherwise, let me point out that at this very moment we already have more than 1000 (perhaps as many as 4000) terrorists running riot in Canberra and doing so with the full knowledge and encouragement of our government.

It is just possible that the terrorist attack warnings by both the PM and ASIO head, Duncan Lewis, and the announcement of a hefty hike in defence spending was just a coincidence. But for those cynics who claim otherwise, let me point out that at this very moment we already have more than 1000 (perhaps as many as 4000) terrorists running riot in Canberra and doing so with the full knowledge and encouragement of our government.

These agents of destruction are of course working undercover as lobbyists, but what ever their name tag, they do far more damage than their religiously inspired equivalent. Consider the onslaught on our country made by clients of the Minerals Council, projects that have laid waste to some of our best agricultural land and compromised our water supplies. ISIS would need nuclear weapons to inflict that sort of damage.

Lobbyists are a gifted body of saboteurs that have managed to infiltrate federal and state governments, turning successive environmental ministers into rubber stamps for whatever 'significant' project they want approved. Not content with having these ministers in their pockets, it seems to me that the big guns, Gina Rinehart, Clive Palmer and Andrew Forest were more than just instrumental in squashing both the mining super profit and the carbon tax, the proceeds of which would have gone a long way to fixing the budget. Now it appears they have the CSIRO in their sights, cutting funding into research into those areas which might embarrass fossil fuel advocates.

If the Mineral Council had a couple of environment ministers and ex PM Tony Abbott as unquestioning supporters, then their co-conspirator, the Property Council, have gone one better. It seems their undercover work has so emasculated the government's tax reform debate that the PM was forced to take their line on preserving negative gearing. This group of unelected influence-mongers have managed to usurp the state planning authorities and now have the power to abscond with public land, rail corridors, museums, and to beggar mortgage-stressed home buyers, leaving the nation with 1.6 trillion dollars in private debt.(http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/why-has-australian-household-debt-tripled-in-the-last-25-years-cw/2015/06/18/) .

During this rampage their clients, the developers and financiers, easily managed to outperform the unions and are right up there with FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football). Some of the proceeds from a $10b ponzi scam in India have been directed into Gold Coast real estate market after, of course, the complementary political donations , doubtless more details will show who got what.

While discussing councils it would be unfair to dismiss the humble efforts of the Food and Grocery Council (F&GC). They don't have much to do with grocers but have a lot to do with food, particularly soft drinks and fast food, which pay more than the stuff farmers produce and which we call fresh food. The above groups have come under a lot of scrutiny because of their role in our obesity crisis which costs, according to who you believe, $21b/year in medical costs and lot more in the abstract, meaning not dollar-costed concept, of wellbeing . So it seems that the F&GC have been able to ward off the scientific studies done by health and medical experts and convince the government health ministers that, despite this high cost to health, cutting back our intake of fast food and sugery drinks would wreck havoc with the economy. To put their achievement into better perspective, about 70 Australians a week are having amputations as a result of preventable diabetes-related complications, a rate of injury that surpasses casualties in every war we have particapated in since WW2.

However before giving the F&GC an award for best lobbyists, it should be pointed out that the various state and federal health departments are less than enthusiastic to take on multi-national corporations even on health issues. This can be seen by their failure to act on the numerous health reports that have fingered coal as a major health hazard. One report that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald (The Coal and Health in the Hunter report by the Climate and Health Alliance (.pdf) ) put the health cost, just in the Hunter valley alone, as $600m per year, while the US government puts a social cost of $47 per tonne of CO2 admitted by coal combustion. The Australian report went on to note: "There's a total disassociation of who gets the benefits and who gets the pain,” which just about sums up the current attitude of governments. However if we lump coal into the rest of the fossil fuel industries, gas and oil, we get a better idea of their success at influencing government policy. A report by the Australia Institute (Why do we subsidise industry? | The Australia Institute) puts the cost of subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry at $10b per year, which compares favourably with the $1.5b the car industry received over a four year period. As part of our shrinking manufacturing industry this was one that, not only added to innovation, but employed about 1 million people. Perhaps the manufacturing organisation should change its lobbyists.

There of course many other lobbyists with a range of interests and influence including clubs, hospitals, private health funds, sporting organisations, private schools, business and hotels, that have all successfully challenged government policy and the public interest, notably in liquor and gambling, but also in other less noticeable ways, like drugs that are added to the PBS. And they do so in different ways. The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism found, in a survey of major metropolitan newspapers published in Australia in 2010, that 55 per cent of content was driven by public relations handouts from lobbyists and their associated public relations arms, and 24 per cent of the content of those metropolitan newspapers had no significant journalistic input whatsoever, relying heavily on public relations handouts. Many of the so-called economic experts we read, hear and see on our media are in the employment of the banks and accounting firms, or belong to so called 'think tanks' such as the Institute of Public Affairs, which are secretly funded and act as fronts for vested interests with their own self-interested agendas. Given the continued decline in media revenue and the loss of serious journalists, this situation can only get worse.

Australia's capacity to tackle important public issues – such as climate change, income inequality, tax avoidance, political donations, indigenous welfare, population growth, and housing affordability – is diminishing because of the power of vested interests, with their lobbying power to influence governments in a quite disproportionate way. Professor Ross Garnaut described it as a "diabolical problem" a sentiment echoed by Ken Henry, a former secretary of Treasury, and Martin Parkinson his successor, who has warned about "vested interests" who seek concessions from government at the expense of ordinary citizens.

But nothing is being done about it.

Estonian House, West Brunswick, 24th February
……………………………………………………………………………………
The crux of this meeting, as presented by Moreland planning staff, is that the previous agreement was voided root-and-branch by the State Government, and in the newly planned Neighbourhood Centres, the allocated zones have been changed somewhat (no-one seemed to recall being given prior notice) and also the previously agreed 3-storey limits (all achieved by quite verbally violent public activity!) have morphed into 4-storey. In the course of the meeting it turned out that 4-storey was not 4-storey mandatory but 4-storey discretionary! The council "hoped" they could make them mandatory. It was impossible despite direct and explicit questioning to find out what was the actual upper height limit is right now, or even if there is an upper height limit.

As previously, there was the muffled threat that this new version of suburban planning, which can only increase occupier density in a municipality with the highest or second highest density in greater Melbourne, was driven by State Government (of a different stripe, but the threat remained the same), and the heavy implication that it might be worse if we did not agree.

There was much volatile discussion around the apparently arbitrary re-drawing of new boundaries---there must always be unfortunate residents who end up next to or surrounded by, possible huge overshadowing apartment blocks whereas across the road it is different.

The Planning guy ( who seemed rather embarrassed; I felt a bit sorry for him) admitted the historically, and also recent, appalling standard of erections in Moreland and also said the Council wished to enforce more stringent standards of good design and superior build quality, but again admitted on questioning that these would also be discretionary.

Others raised the issue of the effect of massive 1-2 bedroom blocks on the current family demographic of this pocket of Moreland. And obviously the failure to account for parallel improvement in infrastructure, most notably public transport but also water, sewage etc. was acknowledged but this point was avoided because all this was a matter for the State and not the Council. Likewise the effect on rates was avoided.

Others had direct stories of fighting developers, achieving modifications on paper which were ignored in concrete, and achieving no redress because what standards there were could be flouted. The stress and anxiety caused by these fights at council and VCAT levels, and the necessity for constant vigilance, were raised quite emotionally by a couple of unfortunates.

An interesting but telling tiny detail was that there were a number of booths set up in Estonian House with Council brochures (the ones with the ridiculously scaled artist's impression illustrating the wide and gracious Boulevarde de Melville). Some residents (who had after all paid for the rent of the hall) also placed sheafs of counter-suggestions and blanks for letters of objection to the proposals in these booths. These disappeared immediately, some were replenished and again they vanished within a minute or two. The presumption is they were taken by council staff who were roving around at all times.

Another interesting detail was that, as far as was visible, we were not graced by the presence of a single councillor.

I went to the one [meeting] at Pascoe Vale neighbourhood Community Hall. People were hostile. They [Council staff] said they were seeking community input for their submission. One resident said;

'Is it going to be like last time when you had the Moreland Rezoning Community consultations. You didn't give an accurate account of our opinions in your submission. No mention how residents opposed increased density, wanted greater protection etc. Instead you said things like, residents wanted better quality apartments etc. What a load of bullshit, you lot are going to do what you want?'

Another lady… said:

'I'm reading through this handout. This is basically a bribe. You're telling us to accept the four storey height limit, because if we don't we'll end up with ten storeys. '

Council officer tried to deny it, but the lady kept pressing and pressing the point that this is a bribe, until the officer admitted in a round about way 'as it stands, developers can apply to build beyond 4 storeys, if we don't have height limits, so we have to put something in place. '

In the draft 1.1 of Neighbourhood Centres Strategy, it states that Plan Melbourne promotes density in defined locations to support a 20minute neighbourhood, where residents will have access to a wide range of local amenities and services. My husband (a Brunswick boy) stood up and said:

'This 20 minute concept was intended for new estate areas. Any residents living in Moreland can already access services and amenities within 20minutes. Within 20min I can be in Brunswick, Coburg, Hospitals in Parkville, Airport West, Essendon DFO, Northland, Moonee Ponds. We don't need density to support the 20min neighbourhood concept. We have it already.’

The artist impression showed block after block of 4 storey apartments surrounding the Pascoe Vale Station, where supposedly people will be able to shop and work near where there live. The station is at the bottom of Gaffney Street hill and commuters take up a lot of parking at the station and in surrounding streets. So where will people park to do their shopping and how many people will walk back up the hill with their shopping? Zilch! They'll go to supermarkets with big car parks. Someone asked if any of these shops and offices, beneath these apartments are going to provide jobs that can pay the mortgage or rent. Are they going to be big volume employers like manufacturing firms in the past, who employed a lot of local residents? Then the officer said:

'The nature of employment has changed from the manufacturing of the past. We're seeing more self employed looking for workspaces close to home. For example, there's a Brunswick artist who is renting a studio close to home.'

Someone sarcastically asked: 'so this artist is going to employ a lot of local people?'

In his Moreland Rezoning submission, Ernest Healy, a former researcher in planning and population at Monash University, has pointed out that 85% of Moreland residents worked outside the municipality. He questioned Council's ability to encourage Moreland residents to work locally.

Questions were also asked about where schools, infrastructure, waste management and services, for example ambulance and hospitals, came into play with all this density. They are becoming overstretched. Strathmore Secondary had to knock back 200 students, including those in the zone. Four portables had to be delivered to Strathmore Secondary and Pascoe Vale Primary, encroaching in playgrounds. Many schools are converting storage areas, locker bays and shelter sheds into classrooms. If density continues, the children won't have a playground. A paramedic I know said hospitals bypasses are increasing…

This madness has to stop. [The mess on] rubbish days in some streets around here is getting worse. So much for the Greens thinking high density is environmentally friendly.

Moreland residents are presently being treated to a new round of ‘consultations’ throughout the municipality, and being indoctrinated by Council staff on the assumed benefits of residential rezoning (radically increased residential densities) and of neighbourhood activity centres as a central feature of the ’20-minute city’. Under this new feudalism, it is expected that residents will access all of their basic material needs and services within a 20 minute walk, bicycle trip, or by public transport. Superficially this may seem a nice idea. On closer scrutiny it is fanciful, so expensive that the necessary additional infrastructure will never be provided, and little more than a pretext for an atrophied Australian business culture dependent upon population growth and capital widening; incapable of building a genuinely modern economy. Selling dirt to China and building a national ponzi economy based on population growth and making each other cappuccinos. Dumb and dumber dressed up as community building and environmental responsibility, but, very politically fashionable – so much so that the left enthusiastically does the economic right’s public relations for it. The Greens on the Moreland Council are a case in point.

That the Moreland Council is conducting a new round of ‘consultations’ on the new feudalism is curious. This is because of the abject failure of the previous round of ‘consultations’ on residential rezoning under the Napthine Coalition government and the subsequent betrayal of Moreland residents on the issue by the Andrews Labor government. The overwhelming message from residents to the pro-density fundamentalism of Council and the Victorian government the first time round was an emphatic rejection of higher residential densities. At the time, the resounding rejection of higher densities by residents served to expose the faux democratic sentiment of the Council planning elite, when Council was subsequently advised, in an official report on the rezoning consultations, that Council should not feel bound to follow mainstream opinion on the rezoning issue anyway.

The latest round of faux consultation is all the more curious because Council’s 2014 rezoning proposal (put to the Coalition government in mid-2014), which at best represented a compromise between the densities that the Moreland city planners were promoting and resident objections to higher densities, was subsequently rejected by the new Labor planning minister, Richard Wynne. As detailed below, the newly elected Victorian Labor government essentially gutted the Moreland compromise rezoning proposal of the key measures that would have preserved some semblance of low-density neighbourhood character in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

As thing stand, the current ‘consultations’ are being conducted in a climate of angry disbelief on the part of residents who carry feelings of insult from being treated contemptuously the first time round. Yet, Council and the Victorian Labor government simply proceed as if residents have the word ‘idiot’ tattooed on their foreheads.

Background:

From late 2013 to mid 2014, a drawn out and at times heated struggle took place between various resident groups within the municipality of Moreland and the Moreland City Council over the implementation of new residential zones, which foreshadowed a radical increase in residential densities within the City.
Prior to the demise of the Bracks/Brumby Victorian Labor government in late 2010, Labor had indicated that it would pursue a policy of limiting residential growth in some suburban locations within Melbourne, facilitating rapid residential growth in other areas, and allowing intermediate growth in others. On coming to government, the Coalition ran with this three zone residential policy approach, which became a source of heated, ongoing contestation in several local government areas. Moreland was amongst them.
Under the Coalition Government, local governments were charged with formulating proposals for the implementation of three residential zones largely differentiated by the levels of density that each zone would facilitate. Moreland city Council therefore also undertook this task. Generally, the Council and Council planning staff showed themselves to be enthusiastic advocates of increased residential densities, despite resident resistance, on the misguided premise that this would represent municipal progress.
After a series of exhausting public consultation meetings, conducted by the City of Moreland, where the overwhelming sentiment of residents was that increases in residential densities should be kept to a minimum, particularly in the ‘low density’ Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the Moreland Council lodged a rezoning proposal with the Rezoning Advisory Panel of the then Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy.

The proposal that was lodged was a significant compromise, which many residents considered unsatisfactory in so far as it allowed for residential density increases in excess of that considered compatible with the preservation of valued neighbourhood character. Nevertheless, key aspects of the Moreland Council proposal, which rendered this compromise acceptable in some degree to some residents, were the inclusion of minimum lot sizes for new dwellings and minimum private open space requirements in the Neighbourhood Residential Zones (the proposal formulated two variants of this zone – one for the North and one for the South of the municipality). These provisions would have facilitated a significant increase in housing stock within the ‘low-density’ Neighbourhood Residential Zones, while still preserving a semblance of neighbourhood character. In most cases, these provisions would allow single detached dwellings on a single lot to be replaced with two, and in some cases three dwellings.
As the Moreland Council proposal had not been accepted by the Napthine Government before it lost office in late 2014, the proposal subsequently came before the newly elected Andrews Labor government and Planning Minister, Richard Wynne.

Wynne accepted the Moreland Council proposal, but only after the minimum lot size and minimum open space requirements had been removed from the proposal. Therefore, what was already a tenuous compromise between the aspirations of the majority of residents and the pro-density predisposition of the Moreland Council proposal was substantially undermined.

Wynne’s removal of these provisions has effectively gutted the hard won compromise reached between Moreland residents and the Council by mid 2014.
A number of issues are raised about the Minister’s bastardisation of the Moreland residential rezoning proposal.

1. The removal of minimum lot size and minimum private open space provisions of the 2014 compromise rezoning proposal has essentially removed any meaningful protective measures against the type of residential density increases that the majority of residents see as an attack on their areas' liveability. Unwanted development will continue unabated, perhaps now even accelerated. It is simply insulting that Council now describes the Labor Minister’s prescription of 4 dwellings per lot (regardless of lot size) as a formula for ‘minimal’ change. Under these conditions, even in the lowest-density zone, the change will be drastic and destructive of the neighbourhood character that most residents seek to preserve. Such language is bureaucratic manipulation at its worst – again, taking the public for fools.

2. In Opposition, Labor Party figures at times aligned themselves with resident protests against proposed Coalition density increases. That a Labor Government should subsequently impose a rezoning outcome worse than many residents would have expected from the Coalition will almost certainly breed cynicism towards Labor in Moreland at a time when Labor should be presenting itself a Party of meaningful alternatives. This is a missed opportunity. One Victorian Labor parliamentarian was silly enough to add insult to injury to assert to a meeting of informed residents that Labor had saved them from the residential density excesses they would have suffered under a Coalition government.

3. Victorian Labor now represents a greater threat to suburban amenity in terms of density and over development than the Coalition had been. Residents may now begin mobilising against Labor in the same way they did against the previous Coalition Government. Labor party members and supporters will be amongst those mobilising against the Labor government on this issue.

4. Victorian Labor appears to have learned nothing from residents' fierce opposition to the proposed residential density increases under the Coalition government. Labor has just picked up from where the previous unpopular Labor minister, Justin Madden, had left off, as if there were no history in between. The take away message from Richard Wynne's treatment of the residential density issue in Moreland is that the Labor government offers no alternative to the Coalition and has no regard for the struggle of Moreland residents against the contempt of the Coalition government on this issue.

5. The negative impacts of rapid population growth on urban amenity, and growing metropolitan dysfunction, played a significant part in the downfall of the Brumby Labor Government in 2010. Given this, it is extraordinary that the current Labor Government had demonstrated a willingness to ignore the aspirations of residents in a way that will almost certainly reduce its chances of winning the seat of Brunswick at the next Victorian election. Some of the most fierce opposition to increased residential densities was from West Brunswick.

What is Minister Wynne’s attack on suburban amenity in Moreland likely to yield in terms of the built environment? Established separate detached dwellings in Moreland are now dropping like flies as small scale, medium-density developers run riot, reaping the windfall benefits of reckless policy. The photo below provides an example of what is likely to become the norm. This site is just under 570 square meters, which until recently had a modest single detached dwelling on it, with a small yard and garden. Whereas under the Moreland City Council’s original rezoning proposal, this site would likely have been allowed only a single double-storey dwelling, in keeping with Richard Wynne’s bastardisation of the Moreland rezoning proposal, permission has been granted for three double-story townhouses.

Despite the Minister’s fatuous claim that Labor’s rezoning provisions in Moreland will protect valued neighbourhood character against over development, Labor has now ensured the continued destruction of the neighbourhood amenity that the majority of residents wish to protect. Political sophistry at its worst. It is little wonder that many Australians rank politicians with used car salesmen.

Even given the irresponsible levels of population and household growth expected under current immigration settings, in all likelihood, the estimated increase in dwellings required for Moreland would have been achievable under Moreland’s original proposal to the Coalition government in 2014. Wynne’s decision seems to be pure ideology: increased residential density is ‘good’; low-density is ‘bad’.

It is not surprising that Wynne was a senior advisor to former Labor Deputy Prime Minister, Brian Howe, in the early 1990s. Howe was a zealous advocate of ‘urban villages’, the antithesis of low-density, garden suburbia. To ‘urban village’ ideologues, including those on the Moreland Council, resident wishes are an obstacle to be overcome, not something to be respected. Labor, it seems, is quickly digging itself into a political hole again on urban policy.

This article contains a speech by Kelvin Thomson, critical of a motion to change environmental law by George Christensen, Member for Dawson, Queensland. Monday, 8 February 2016, House of Representatives, Chamber Speech, page 22 Hansard proofs.

KELVIN THOMSON I do not support this motion by the member for Dawson. The environmental law is there to protect the environment and to protect endangered species. The member for Dawson's own party brought it in. All environmental groups ask is that mining companies, agribusiness and so on do not break the law, just as environment groups and ordinary citizens are expected to abide by the law.
If companies abide by the law, there is no issue. All the provisions that the member for Dawson complains about do is give people a right to take action if the environment law is not being complied with. The implication in the member for Dawson's motion is that mining and other companies should not have to comply with the environmental law—that they should be able to break it with impunity.

The member for Dawson may not care about the black throated finch, but I do. It is a beautiful little bird. We should not push it to the edge of extinction in our quest for ever-increasing material wealth. Mining booms come and go but black throated finches do not. If the black throated finch becomes extinct, there is no way to bring it back. We have the EPBC Act precisely because we have learnt from the mistakes of the past and we should support it and strengthen it, not undermine and white-ant it.

Since being passed by the Howard government 16 years ago the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act has been the overriding national environmental protection law, including throughout the mining boom, and environment groups are required to operate within this law. Since the act commenced in the year 2000 there have been approximately 5,500 projects referred to the minister under the environmental impact assessment provisions. Of those projects around 1,500 have been assessed as requiring formal assessment and approval.

Around 33 actions have been commenced in the Federal Court by third parties in relation to the EPBC Act's environmental impact assessment process. The proceedings taken by third parties have related to only 22 projects that had been referred under the environmental impact assessment process, so this means that third-party appeals to the Federal Court affected only 0.4 of one per cent of all projects referred under the legislation.

Environmental advocacy is in the public interest. Environmental advocacy enhances environmental decision making and accountability and drives policy reform to protect the environment. The Australia Institute conducted national polling and found that 68 per cent of Australians support environmental advocacy. While 27 per cent said environmental groups had too much influence in public debates, 34 per cent said they had not enough influence.
By contrast, most people—62 per cent—said big business and 58 per cent said mining companies had too much influence.
While six in 10 Australians are concerned that big business and mining companies have too much influence, the coalition enthusiastically promotes them and even encourages them to become political activists and fight government policy. In the last five years the mining industry has spent $340 million on lobby groups and more on registered lobbyists and in-house lobbyists. The government is arguing to silence environmental activists while on the other hand it wants industry lobbyists to become activists—the irony, the double standard!

Section 487 was designed to address issues of standing, a legal term that broadly means an individual's or group's right to challenge an approval on the basis that they are either affected by it or have a special interest in the outcome. It does not provide for open standing, whereby anyone can bring an action for review, but it does authorise representative standing in which groups can act on behalf of an affected community. This is a crucial component of a national environmental act that seeks to promote rigorous and effective environmental review for approvals that, potentially, affect matters of national environmental significance, such as the development of Queensland's Galilee Basin coal deposits.

Removing section 487 will stop environmental groups from acting on behalf of affected communities and performing their important function as a watchdog. As The Australia Institute has highlighted, advocacy is essential for a well-functioning democracy, providing for those most affected by government decisions to be involved in policy formation, helping keep government accountable to the wider community and counterbalancing the influence of corporate organisations over government decision making.

Robust environmental review by focused, engaged, representative organisations, like the Mackay Conservation Group and the Australian Conservation Foundation, has never been more important. Rolling back the legal provisions that allow this to happen would be a backward step.

Australian comedian Barry Humphries' humour identified and targeted a world of pleasant streets and gardens that is now under threat. We've stopped laughing, but is it too late?

I was raised on the humour of Australian comedian, Barry Humphries, when his main alter ego was the suburban sage simply known as "Mrs Edna Everage” and his eastern suburbs commentary issued forth in the monotonous narrow viewed but well-meaning drone of Mr. Sandy Stone. Barry’s characters described a world which was very familiar to me, although I lived in neither the now famous Moonee Ponds nor in the apparent epitome of Melbourne mediocrity, Glen Iris. The adults in my family all found the Humphries humour hilarious, despite, or maybe because of the fact that their lives were being held up to good humoured ridicule. I shared this delight and amusement with them.

Barry Humphries' targets were mediocre, commonplace and rather petty preoccupations such as lawn mowing, sandwich making, wall colour, general domestic decor and associated status symbols. It was all so familiar and we laughed our heads off all the more, delighted to be laughing at ourselves and our nearest and dearest. Or if it wasn’t us it was someone we knew. The humour rested on an assumption of self- satisfied comfort and safety, devoid of outside threat. Our laughter and Barry’s merciless assault is an indication of how quickly we forget and how short each stage of our lives really is. Barry was born in 1934, safely clear of any expectation of participation in WW2 or The Vietnam War. He emerged as an adult in the postwar comfort and optimism of the 1950s and played to an audience where young couples were settling into their suburban Shangri -la’s. "The Australian dream” of the house and garden was alive and well and not under any threat. This situation continued for a few more decades but on a downward trajectory in terms of general accessibility, that is to say, affordability.

Fast forward to the present day and what was once a source of relaxation, pleasure, security and comedy, the suburban family home, is now turning into a tragedy.

The undermining of the family home and garden in concept and reality has been under way for at least 30 years. It began with soft rumbles, the odd newspaper opinion piece advocating the end of the 1/4 acre block and the beginning of a rhetoric very negative and critical of the way we lived. People started to parrot these opinion pieces and preach knowingly at dinner parties, that we couldn’t go on living as we were as though cleverly seeing into the future. Then they would go home and continue living as they were, no doubt thinking that it was people in the future who would have to live differently, not they. The point was that they did not express any feeling of being under threat. Yet they were. They are!

The sacred, yet hilarious homes of our parents and of us are now being demolished, at a frightening rate. The honest workmanship of the Californian Bungalo and the 50s triple fronted cream brick veneers is being replaced with nondescript non- architectural multi dwelling, fence to fence arrangements , devoid of of any reference to the humanity of those who are expected to dwell within. The subject of Barry’s whole comedy career is being pulled down in front of us; a new cavernous car park excavation appearing near where I live each week. That is the reality on the ground. In the media , a past Victorian Planning Minister, Justin Madden who now works for developers was given space for a whole article about the need and desirability, nay imperative, of demolishing 60 year old houses in a ring of Melbourne suburbs about 15 kms from the CBD. There’s always a new angle in the scramble to fit ever more residents into Melbourne (which grows by about 80,000 people p.a.) Developers who can get their hands on these unsuspecting little houses on their “1/4 acre" blocks (I understand they never were as large as 1/4 acre, really) can make a killing by demolishing and redeveloping to fit in more residences.

It seems to me that people are now really getting upset by all this. They see their local neighbourhoods in a constant state of transformation. They are living perpetually in a construction zone. Trees, houses and gardens go, roadworks and construction abound and there is the constant shock of empty blocks of land either totally cleared and levelled or exposing raw bedrock 3 metres deep, previously covered with a few tonnes of earth and rocks and iced with pleasant house and garden.

But what has this to do with Barry Humphries? Well for a start, the much derided but rather enviable and almost egalitarian Melbourne suburban way of life is swirling down the plug hole and will be gone before you know it. The people of Melbourne did very little to protect it when it was first under fire and now it is probably too late. Were we asleep at the wheel? Did Barry Humphries unwittingly lull us into a child-like sense of security about our home city?

What does Barry say now when, in actual fact what is happening is that our precious gardens are being used to accommodate an ever higher population? Had we been asked 15 or 20 years ago if we minded someone building in our backyard, we would have said, “go and find you own land!” but that is what we are being forced to do now. People move out of garden-surrounded houses into units with token amounts of land and end up with only a little bit of change from the exchange. Collectively, what is happening is that others are building in our gardens!

Barry Humphries’ jokes about the scourge of thrip on the roses (or was it the tomatoes?) will be incomprehensible to future Melbournians. How can this joke be funny when the “problem” is foreign to you?

The hour long video inside gives excellent analysis of what is wrong with the TPP. Basically it is an attempt to bring about an overarching corporate world government that will invalidate national and state laws wherever they disagree with it. But with this government there are no voters, there are no citizens, there is no recourse. What can you do about this? Contact your local MP and ask they what they intend to do to stop the TPP? Are they going to vote against it? Let us know their response. You can read the full text of the TPP here, thanks to the New Zealand Government: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-full-text-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/

With the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) no longer secret, journalist Thom Hartmann discusses what’s in the trade deal with Public Citizen's Melinda St. Louis, radio host and author Ari Rabin-Havt, and the U.S. Business and Industry Council’s Kevin Kearns.

Genetically Modified Food labeling would be outlawed

"Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio denounced a provision discretely hidden in pending trade legislation that would allow governments or corporations to sue countries or states over laws that mandate the labelling of genetically modified foods.

If approved by Congress, the legislation called Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track,” would not allow Congress to amend or filibuster free trade agreements negotiated by the president and would require and up or down vote within 90 days. (Source: This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
"http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/US-Lawmaker-Slams-Monsanto-Provision-in-Fast-Track-Bill-for-TPP-20150429-0030.html". If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english.)

The TPP and International Corporate Control

"As the devastating conclusions of these and other researchers awaken people globally to the dangers of Roundup and GMO foods, transnational corporations are working feverishly with the Obama administration to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would strip governments of the power to regulate transnational corporate activities. Negotiations have been kept secret from Congress but not from corporate advisors, 600 of whom have been consulted and know the details. According to Barbara Chicherio in Nation of Change:

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history. . . .

The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique.  If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.

. . . They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.

Food safety is only one of many rights and protections liable to fall to this super-weapon of international corporate control. In an April 2013 interview on The Real News Network, Kevin Zeese called the TPP “NAFTA on steroids” and “a global corporate coup.” He warned:

No matter what issue you care about—whether its wages, jobs, protecting the environment . . . this issue is going to adversely affect it . . . .

If a country takes a step to try to regulate the financial industry or set up a public bank to represent the public interest, it can be sued . . . .

(Source: http://ellenbrown.com/2013/11/26/monsanto-the-tpp-and-global-food-dominance/"

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Undermine Internet Freedom

"Remember SOPA - the "copyright" legislation before Congress last year that public outcry stopped cold? Well, the same corporations behind SOPA have pushed to insert its most pernicious provisions into TPP. Says who? The organizations that stopped SOPA like the Electronic Freedom Foundation and the ACLU.

Under this TPP proposal, Internet Service Providers could be required to "police" user activity (i.e. police YOU), take down internet content, and cut people off from internet access for common user-generated content.

Violations could be as simple as the creation of a YouTube video with clips from other videos, even if for personal or educational purposes.

Mandatory fines would be imposed for individuals' non-commercial copies of copyrighted material. So, downloading some music could be treated the same as large-scale, for-profit copyright violations.

Innovation would be stifled as the creation and sharing of user-generated content would face new barriers, and as monopoly copyrights would be extended. The TPP proposes to impose copyright protections for a minimum of 120 years for corporate-created content.

Breaking digital locks for legit purposes, such as using Linux, could subject users to mandatory fines. Blind and deaf people also would be harmed by this overreach, as digital locks can block access to audio-supported content and closed captioning." (Sourc: http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_InternetFreedom.html)"

From the Waking Times[1]

"

Today, the website of New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade released the massive, full text of the ostensibly secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

At the bottom there is a link to a zip file containing all chapters or one can read and save each chapter PDF individually. The lengthy text contains a lot of business newspeak. However, various chapters deal with history’s biggest free trade move yet, pharmaceutical industries, business conduct in third-world and developing countries, agriculture, state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies (interesting terminology), government procurement, competition policies, and e-commerce.

In October, WikiLeaks claimed that they had a leaked copy of the full text and it contained information on trade secrets and top-down control of the Internet that are indeed found in chapter 18.

It is referred to as the “Agreement,” although most of the world’s people have never had any say at all in the decisions foisted on them below.

NOTES

[1] Waking Times http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/11/06/full-text-of-trans-pacific-partnership-finally-released/"

Video inside: The Kennett era in Victoria represented a neoliberal makeover of government, state and local. Swept to power during a global property collapse in 1992, the Liberal premier imposed radical and rapid transformation without electoral platform or forewarning. It was a classic case of the international phenomenon documented by Naomi Klein in Shock Doctrine. This talk focuses on the transformation of the core municipality of greater Melbourne – the Melbourne City Council in its historic context. It was disempowered and its citizens disenfranchised between 1992-9 to give the Growth Machine of property interests and state government free rein. That Machine emerged from the mid 1970s, being reinforced under the previous Labor government, 1982-92, as the manufacturing sector was phased out federally; cranes on the skyline was Premier Cain’s catchcry. Kennett capitalized on a political and institutional tradition in which property interests (entrenched in the Victorian Legislative Council) dominated from inception. Other Australian colonies were founded by government rather than land seekers.

This speech was given at the SPAVICTAS AGM at Ross House on 5 September 2015. The speech is based on Dr Munro's PhD, downloadable from http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/items/daa21f8b-4758-410c-954a-a6409d3fdaca/1/ as .pdf of 3.44MB. Dr Munro mentions, as a contrast to Kennett's notion of 'commonsense', Thomas Payne's book, "Commonsense", which was banned in Britain and became immensely popular. (Download a free copy here.)

Video inside: This article is the text of a speech by Sheila Newman about how Kennett Government policies pushed up population growth in Victoria and Australia. Whilst many people remained for a long time under the impression that immigration numbers were a Federal domain, he began the practise of using regional migration definitions to attract people to urban Melbourne. He also de-toothed Victorian industrial law, affecting wages, condition and enforcement. The new interpretation of regional migration was adapted by other States and territories. Kennett's attack on Victorian industrial laws would ultimately pave the way for Workchoices and a much less effective system for ensuring that imported workers were not paid less than Australians, creating a new pull-factor in Australia.

Regional migration under Kennett

This is the text of a speech given to SPAVICTAS AGM 2015.

Way under the radar of the general public, the Kennett Government (1992-1999) began a practice of using the rural category of ‘region in need of migration’ to reclassify Melbourne itself.
Melbourne was thus reclassified a regional migration area by the Kennett Government in 1998, which meant it became a destination for people who traditionally migrated to country regions under softer entry rules. [1]

Regional migration categories permitted easier entry for immigrants. Rural employers could sponsor workers for positions they claimed they were unable to fill, with fewer tests than urban employers and immigrants coming in under classical federal schemes. They could also sponsor a wider range of family reunion, such as nephews, to work in family businesses. [2]
The trend that Kennett started was imitated by the other States. Over time all the other states also declared their CBDs in need of immigration under regional migration rules. This was the time of the rise of the internet. Before this time, immigration had been a long drawn out process that was hard for individuals to initiate or get approval for. Now Australian States started up state Immigration websites advertising state and private sponsorship of immigrant workers and their families. Currently, these include:

In Victoria, liveinvictoria.gov.com.au; Note that the Victorian government has just changed the name of their liveinvictoria.gov.au website to https://liveinmelbourne.vic.gov.au/. Probable reason is that they know people are onto the old site.
in WA www.migration.wa.gov.au;
South Australia, migration.sa.gov.au;
in Queensland, migration.qld.gov.au;
ACT, canberrayourfuture.com.au;
Northern Territory, australiasnorthernterritory.com.au; Tasmania, migration.tas.gov.au

Kennet was congratulated by people in favour of high Migration for having increased migration to the regions and reversed the long-term trend of migration out of Victoria, much of it to Queensland.

This perception was criticised because the so-called ‘regional migrants’ mostly ended up in urban Melbourne. [3]

Nonetheless, I would make the following case that these migration policies and several of Jeff Kennett’s other policies were a major factor in creating conditions which would set Australian on a terrible path to rapid and uncontrolled mass migration.

Kennet’s changes to industrial law made it easier to import cheap labour

Before the Kennett government, most Victorian wage earners worked under state awards which prescribed minimum conditions and wages, including holidays, benefits and penalties for an extensive range of employment roles. Any employee could look these up or have them explained easily by the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission, through a hotline called Wageline – where I worked. But in 1993, the Kennett Government abolished the Victorian Industrial Relations Act, replacing it with the weaker and harder to enforce, and poorly staffed, Employee Relations Act. [4]

Other Australian states imitated this initiative.

Unions scrambled to cover employees by registering new awards under Federal law, under s.51(xxxv) of the Australian constitution. These awards, however, had to be negotiated between individual organisations and their employees. Their enforcement was very limited under the Federal constitution. They were mostly inaccessible and incomprehensible for individual employees.

This right-wing revolution in Victorian industrial law under Kennett in 1993 set the scene for Workchoices under the John Howard government, (11 March 1996 to 3 December 2007). The Howard Government, entering this weakened industrial law and industrial relations situation, went on to widen the use of the corporations clause in the Australian constitution, which exempted corporations from many employer obligations. [5]

Up until now Australian employers had not had much to gain by importing immigrant workers because they had been required to employ them under the same industrial awards as native born workers. That meant that there was not the same opportunity to import cheap labour as there was, notoriously, in the United States.

Today we are in a situation where the Australian labour market has been greatly deregulated and it is now possible to employ overseas immigrants according to individually tailored employment contracts where they have little or no bargaining power or recourse for legal protection.

Coupled with the deregulation of immigration, this has created local pull factors which the Australian growth lobby has been keen both to lobby for and to exploit.

Deregulation of housing market and Rise of the Internet as factors

Two further processes have helped to expand the trends that Jeff Kennett’s actions set in motion. These further processes were:

- Deregulation of the Australian housing market to permit overseas purchase and investment
- The rise of the internet, which was exploited by state governments, private migration agents in conjunction with employers; universities seeking students; and property financiers, conveyancers, developers and real-estate agencies, to globalise Australian employment, public institutions, universities, and property.

Steve Bracks and John Brumby would continue Kennett’s big population campaign, despite the different brand presentations of their politics.

Was Kennett aware of his contribution to setting in motion Australia’s unfortunate population tsunami? He was a great population growth spruiker and had served formally as Minister for Housing, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1981 under the Hamer government. He has made many public declarations on his perception that very high immigration is desirable.

In The Age in March 1998, the following businessmen and politician argued that population growth was desirable and inevitable: Tony Berg, then Chief Executive Officer of Boral Industries (building materials and components) and still, in 2001, director of numerous banking, insurance and property trust related groups and holdings, and the Midland Brick Company; Jeff Kennett, populationnist Premier of Victoria (who presided over a developmentalist Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure which decreased housing lot sizes under a code and administration largely unresponsive to public outrage), and Phil Ruthven, who again claimed that by the end of the 21st century Australia's population would be 150 million.

An article in Civil Engineers Australia – December 1998, entitled, “Big Population Growth Needed, Forum Told – enVision ’98 Conference", reported speakers for high immigration and a big population. Among them were Tony Berg, Jeff Kennett, Alan Stockdale, Treasurer of the Kennett Victorian Liberal Government, Dr Jack Wynhoven, chairman of the enVision 98 organising committee and chief executive officer of Connell Wagner (Engineering and major infrastructure projects) and John White, chief executive officer of Richard Pratt's Visy [Paper and Packaging but also manufacturers of Visy board, a building material] Industries. (Pratt was Vice President of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures and has extensive involvement in business.)

The theme of needing a big population in order to repel invaders remains popular. In "More Migrants, Pleads Kennett", by Christine Jackman in the Melbourne Herald Sun, 12/2/1999, Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett was quoted telling "a New York business lunch" that "Australia's population was so low it would not even be able to defend Tasmania", attacking immigration levels as "almost negligible".... and underestimating them at "about 60,000 a year." (Source of quote is Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence, Chapter 6, http://tinyurl.com/p4ykwup)

The following graphs show interstate migration trends over the period discussed

NOTES

[1] State Government spokesman, Jeremi Moule, 2003, cited in Catherine Best, “Culture shock strikes region,” The Courier, Fairfax regional media, December 12, 2003, http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/577142/culture-shock-strikes-region/

[2] “Persons sponsored by relatives in the SDAS visa subclasses currently receive concessions in two ways: no points test to pass and a lower English language threshold criterion. More than half of those visaed are being sponsored by relatives living in Melbourne. Given that the underlying reason for providing points concessions is to attract persons to locations where the Government is anxious to promote settlement (notably regional locations) there does not seem to be any rationale for Melbourne to continue as a designated area in the SDAS visa subclass.” Evaluation of the General Skilled Migration Categories, Dept of Immigration, March 2006, by Bob Birrell et al, “Evaluation of the General Skilled Migration Categories,” Dept of Immigration, March 2006, p.178. http://www.flinders.edu.au/sabs/nils-files/reports/GSM_2006_Full_report.pdf

The Skilled Regional (489) visa is a provisional skilled migration visa that can provide a pathway to permanent residence. The visa is administered by the Commonwealth Government’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). Prior to applying for this visa you must be nominated by a state or territory government, or sponsored by an eligible relative living in Australia.
The Victorian Government offers state nomination under the Skilled Regional (489) visa for highly skilled and eligible professionals and tradespeople who want to work in regional Victoria. Source: . [Last accessed on 27 September 2015]. More general visas on that page : http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/visas-and-immigrating/state-nomination#.Vd_lAys_i1Q .

[3] John O'Leary, “The Resurgence of marvellous Melbourne - trends in Population distribution in Victoria, 1991-1996,” People and Place, Vol.7,no.1 and Catherine Best, “Culture shock strikes region,” The Courier, Fairfax regional media, December 12, 2003, http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/577142/culture-shock-strikes-region/)

[4] My reference is personal experience in the Victorian Department of Labor at the time, and, Richard Tracey, “Standing Fast, Federal Regulation of Industrial Relations in Victoria,” H.R. Nicholls Society, http://archive.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol14/vol14-3.php]

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices: “Relying on the corporations power of Section 51(xx) of the Constitution, the Howard Government extended the coverage of the federal industrial relations system to an estimated 85% of Australian employees. All employees of "constitutional corporations" (i.e. trading, financial, and foreign corporations) became covered by the WorkChoices system. Other constitutional powers used by the Federal Government to extend the scope of the legislation included the territories power to cover the Australian territories, including the external territories of the Christmas and Cocos Islands, the external affairs power, the interstate and overseas trade and commerce power, and the powers of the Commonwealth to legislate for its own employees. Victoria voluntarily had referred its industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth in 1996, under Section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution.”

[6] The Age, 16 March, 1999, "Kennett calls for big rise in migrant intake", Cited in Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence, Chapter 6, http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:7395 (with appendices) or (without appendices) http://tinyurl.com/p4ykwup

[7] Miles Lewis, Suburban Backlash, Bloomings Books, Victoria, Australia, 1999, p.viii. Cited in Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence, Chapter 6, http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:7395 (with appendices) or (without appendices) http://tinyurl.com/p4ykwup Cited in Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence, Chapter 6, http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:7395 (with appendices) or (without appendices) http://tinyurl.com/p4ykwup

[8] “Trevor Sykes, The Bold Riders, Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, New South Wales, Second Edition, 1996, (Year 2000 reprint), p.337 mentions that Pratt controlled Regal Insurance and Occidental Insurance in the late 1980s and was one of the funders of a shelf company called Bacharach Pty Ltd, which corporate cowboy, Abe Goldberg, used to purchase Brick and Pipe Industries, which he believed to be an unrealised land bank. Additional information about business interests was obtained from the Business Who's Who of Australia, Dun and Bradstreet Marketing P/L, 35th Edition, 2001.” Cited in Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence, Chapter 6, http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:7395 (with appendices) or (without appendices) http://tinyurl.com/p4ykwup

[9] Christine Jackman, "More Migrants, Pleads Kennett", Melbourne Herald Sun, 12/2/1999, p.16.

UPDATE 29 September 2015, Click here for video of speech.SPAVicTas AGM, 5 September 2015, Ross House, 247 Flinders Lane, 4th Floor Conference Room: 1.45 for 2pm. Speaker: Dr Angela Munro, Public Policy expert: "Kennett's 'commonsense revolution' and the Melbourne 'growth machine'. "The unilateral substitution of an appointed commission for the elected Melbourne City Council in October, 1993 by the incoming, neoliberal Victorian Government, was followed by its disempowerment as a democratic institution before reinstatement in emasculated form in 1996. The resounding defeat of the Labor government, in 1992, coincided with an unprecedented global property collapse whose cataclysmic economic and political consequences in Melbourne were conducive to this marginalisation of the City Council and citizenry. A historic dual conflict over the governance and development of central Melbourne between the Victorian Government and the City Council on the one hand, and between central city property interests and citizenry on the other, was immediately resolved. Whereas efficiencies justified council amalgamations statewide, the Melbourne City Council was subject to separate and extreme centralisation of state government power, deregulation of urban planning and de-democratisation as a micro CBD council."

Sustainable Population Australia,
Victorian and Tasmanian branch
Annual General Meeting 2015
On - Saturday September 5th
At - 1.45 for 2.00pm. (if you arrive late and the front door is closed – ring 0405 825769 or 0409742927)
Venue: Ross House, 247 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 3000 Hayden Raysmith Conference Room, Fourth Floor. – (Turn left from the stairwell; or from lift through fire door and then left. It is the corner room).

Guest Speaker : Dr. Angela Munro, Public Policy expert:

"Kennett's 'commonsense revolution' and the Melbourne 'growth machine"

"The unilateral substitution of an appointed commission for the elected Melbourne City Council in October, 1993 by the incoming, neoliberal Victorian Government, was followed by its disempowerment as a democratic institution before reinstatement in emasculated form in 1996. The resounding defeat of the Labor government, in 1992, coincided with an unprecedented global property collapse whose cataclysmic economic and political consequences in Melbourne were conducive to this marginalisation of the City Council and citizenry. A historic dual conflict over the governance and development of central Melbourne between the Victorian Government and the City Council on the one hand, and between central city property interests and citizenry on the other, was immediately resolved. Whereas efficiencies justified council amalgamations statewide, the Melbourne City Council was subject to separate and extreme centralisation of state government power, deregulation of urban planning and de-democratisation as a micro CBD council."

Sheila Newman (Masters by Research in Environmental Sociology, specialising in population and environment), writer and researcher, current president of the SPA VicTas branch whose own research is complementary will add population specific details to fill in the jig saw of the picture of the population pressures we are experiencing in Victoria: "Victoria's population numbers under Kennett."

(Video inside.) Once again Nick Folkes and his Party for Freedom have come up with a very effective way to protest against foreign ownership and overpopulation through invited economic immigration and its impacts.[1] Other groups would do well to imitate these democratic initiatives especially if they differ with Party for Freedom on issues of multiculturalism but care about housing affordability and democracy, rather than simply trying to shut Party for Freedom up and, in the process, allow the growth lobby to destroy Australia. In this video Folkes and his Party continue their campaign to make real estate agents and property developers think twice about selling built property to foreign nationals. They focus on the preponderance of Chinese foreign nationals purchasing Australian property. This cannot help but get attention since the Australian mainstream media constantly popularises this issue, although it does not promote any effective way of countering it. (Note that Fairfax and Murdoch press are heavily invested in property dot coms that market Australian real estate to the world: www.realestate.com and www.domain.com). In the video inside this article Mr Folkes engages effectively with people who show both positive and negative interest in the protest for which he is a spokesperson. What next, Mr Folkes, a protest at an Australian international airport, or on the road towards it?

Party for Freedom's press release with this video

"On Saturday, 29th August 2015, Party for Freedom members and supporters will be carrying out protests at auction sites objecting to foreign nationals purchasing Australian residential property.

Last Saturday, 15th August we held protests or flash mobs at three auction sites. The response was amazing with real estate agents and onlookers totally shocked seeing patriotic Australian arrive with placards and Australian flags reminding both real estate agents and foreign buyers that it is illegal under Australian law to sell existing property to foreign nationals.

Thousands of properties have been illegally sold to foreign nationals yet our government does nothing to stop the buy out. It is economic genocide to transfer assets and wealth to foreign nationals. Also, the impact on housing prices and rentals is huge with Australian property prices being some of the most expensive real estate in the world due to foreign ownership coupled with mass immigration.

Both NSW and Victorian state governments are addicted to stamp duty and will continue to encourage foreign ownership. Last year alone, the slippery NSW Treasury raked in over $7.4 billion in stamp duty. No doubt much of this stamp duty money is ‘dirty money’ from China. The CCP Politburo is on an anti-corruption drive in China so many Chinese nationals with connections to the ‘Chinese Communist Party’ are keen to get their money out of China. China has rules in place restricting the export of undeclared money yet does very little to stop the outflows to Australia and other Western and Asian nations."

The press release also claims, without supplying documentation for the statement, that,

"The Chinese government wants to establish ‘Chinese satellites’ throughout the world giving it control and prestige in many nations. The Chinese government has secret plans to move millions of Chinese nationals out of China to help establish these new colonies.

The press release continues:

The people of Hong Kong have seen their small city-state overrun with mainlanders, this has pushed up property prices and demolished wages and job opportunities. Australia should take notice what is happening around the world and take action but we know that our government is too busy getting intoxicated on lure of easy money."

"It is now up to the people of our nation to take action, and this is exactly what we did last Saturday when we arrived unannounced at three auction sites. The first auction site we arrived at was Chatswood. The real estate agent and prospective buyers weren’t happy seeing us arrive when we reminding them that we do not want to see our nation sold out. Our action caused the auction to be cancelled. Our intention is not to stop or interrupt auctions but to exercise our democratic right of protest and remind all present that it is illegal to sell existing property to foreign nationals. We have a right to be angry and annoyed at seeing foreign nationals steal our economic sovereignty.

The second auction site was Turramurra. Again, the real estate agent and onlookers were totally shocked with some rowdy neighbours calling us “racists’ and “bogans”. There were even more neighbours who quietly gave us support and openly spoke about their own opposition to Labor and Liberal’s foreign sell out. These good people hold the same reservations as we do when it comes to our pimpish real estate industry and government who are more than eager in flogging off our nation to foreign entities."

NOTE

[1] Despite my admiration for the effective democratic protest these Australians are making in defense of housing affordability and Australian sovereignty, Party for Freedom's previous website featured some articles and comments about aboriginals and muslims with which candobetter.net does not agree and with which I cannot agree on anthropological grounds personally, speaking as a sociologist specialising in population, inheritance laws and land-use planning. Furthermore, I think that these comments are antithetical to the Party for Freedom's arguments for sovereignty - which is actually best achieved with a fair dose of endogamy. Here is my reasoning:

These comments and articles use 'scientific' theory against specific groups of peoples. For instance, one article discusses a high rate of cousin marriage in a particular people as if it were unusual or hazardous incest. That is a popular view that does not take into account the widespread role of endogamy in preserving land within a people, and other factors that need to be taken into account when assessing cousin marriage. In fact, a high rate of endogamy need not be genetically damaging; it can be beneficial, both in terms of preserving control over territory and in strengthening positive traits. Depending on the public relations, where one highly endogamous group can be stigmatised for 'inbreeding stupidity' another may be famous for 'inbreeding genius'. When assessing the impact of marriage and land-tenure traditions on genetic inheritance, environment and changes to economy, diet, and social organisation also need to be taken into account. See http://candobetter.net/node/3197 about the importance of dynasties in modern power. There is also a comment on the Party for Freedom site suggesting that a particular group of people have lower average I.Q.s that other people. IQ tests are not reliable when dealing with culture and language differences and this theory also does not take into account mass dispossession and changes to economy, diet and social organisation - and the impact of drugs and alcohol. It's a pity that the Party for Freedom does not seem to be able to see how fighting between groups weakens the ability of Australians to stand up to the powers that have overtaken national control of land, housing and economic benefits.

Despite these reservations, I do not want to fall into the trap of enabling wedge politics, which makes people afraid to learn from positive efforts by other groups on the grounds that those groups also hold opinions of which they disapprove. If I were to engage in wedge politics, I would not publish the Party for Freedom's video, on grounds of my differences with their opinions about issues from endogamous marriages - which are, ironically, also widely held by the general political, scientific and citizen community.

This short article around a letter from Bob Couch, records how the ABC spontaneously contacted a candidate for an alternative political party to tell him that the ABC would not give him any time to talk about his policies. The candidate had not approached the ABC, they approached him. Candobetter.net has run a few articles about how the ABC excludes candidates outside the major parties and we are running this story because the issue is so important. The ABC should be informing Australians of all the political alternatives out there so that we can really choose people who will represent us on issues of concern. See also and http://candobetter.net/node/1159.

The decision by the ABC to allow Zaky Mallah to appear on Q and A has attracted much criticism (Advertiser 25/6 and 26/6)). This has been defended by the ABC on the grounds it needs to represent a diversity of views.

I ran as a candidate for the Stop Population Growth Now Party in the SA Legislative Council general election last year. Barely had nominations closed , and before I had approached any media, I received a letter from the ABC informing me that I would not be granted any time on the ABC to explain our party policies.

I am a law abiding, loyal citizen who has lived in Australia all my life.
I have no criminal record. I was nominated by a legally registered political party (with over 300 members) to contest the Fisher by election.
I paid the $8000 expenses (nomination fee $3000, corflutes , how to vote cards etc $5000) out of my own pocket, as our party was low on funds.
Surely I deserved some consideration.

Yet the ABC sees fit to give national exposure to Mallah, who served two and a half years in jail for buying a gun, and threatening to kill ASIO officers.

I am forced to conclude that the ABC is not even handed, and does not properly represent diverse opinions.

Bob Couch
Marino,SA

Yesterday, as the U.S. Senate resolved to ‘fast- track’ the TPP, in Australia, the Productivity Commission came out all guns blazing declaring the ‘free’ trade agreement ‘preferential’ and ‘dangerous’. Bill Davis and Dr Matthew Mitchell report.Republished with thanks from original article at Independent Australia.

See also: The Day the Earth Died and why Sierra Club, Greenpeace, et al. were virtually silent about it (25/6/15) | Global Research

THESE TWO EVENTS occurring on opposite sides of the Pacific should trigger ring alarm bells with the Australian public because the Abbott government is on the brink of signing away our sovereign rights (ISDS clause) amongst other things.

What is the TPP?

Firstly, what is the TPP? The U.S. trade representative’s official description is:

... an ambitious,21st-century Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that will enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries, promote innovation, economic growth and development, and support the creation and retention of jobs.

Here's why the TPP is such a BFD

The economic growth claims have already been debunked by a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, so if it does not deliver GDP growth, then what is the purpose of the TPP? Professor Jane Kelsey  from the University of Auckland explains the real intention of the TPP [IA emphasis]:

The US aims to revive its geopolitical, strategic and economic influence in the Asian region to counter the ascent of China, in part through constructing a region-wide legal regime that serves the interests of, and is enforceable by, the US and its corporations.

So this proposed TPP “agreement” involves Australia as well as a host of other potential member nations including Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam and the United States. South Korea has also indicated it may sign up.

How far off is agreement on the TPP?

The deal is essentially done in terms of agreement between the 12 countries which make up this bloc and could be signed by end of the year. Fast-tracking the TPP has removed a major impediment in the United States. Fast-tracking is summarised by journalist Dave Johnson as follows:

With fast track, Congress agrees to set aside its duties under Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and vote on TPP within 90 days of it being signed, to severely limit discussion and debate, not to filibuster the agreement in the Senate and not to amend it not matter what problems turn up after the agreement is revealed. Fast track essentially pre-approves the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement (and future trade bills) before the public gets a chance to know what is in it.'

Overnight, Reuters reported that the Senate voted 60 to 38 giving Obama the power to negotiate the TPP and other trade deals and fast track them through Congress. The bill goes next to President Obama for his signature

Australia’s process for approving trade agreements is not so different to the U.S.’s fast-track process.

AFTINET describes Australia’s process as follows [IA emphasis]:

The Trade Minister presents the text to the Cabinet, which is made up of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. The decision to sign the text is made by Cabinet, not the whole Parliament.

The text cannot be changed after it is signed.

Parliament only votes on the implementing legislation, not on the whole text of the agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), for example, has 29 chapters and only a few of these will require changes to legislation.”

However, many other chapters will restrict the ways in which current and future Australian governments can legislate, but will not require legislation. For example, the inclusion of the right of foreign investors to sue governments over domestic legislation (investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS) does not require a change to Australian legislation. Other changes, like changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, could be done by changing regulation rather than through legislation.

As many journalists and commentators have argued, agreements like the TPP have dubious benefits for the populations of the countries involved.

Kelvin Thomson's response to a question about how Multilateral Trade Agreements (such as the transpacific partnership agreements) might affect Australia's ability to control immigration numbers and to control the awarding of local jobs to local firms. He describes how this might be problematic and does not think we should sign any treaties containing an "Investor state dispute settlement clause." He explains why. He also discusses the process which sounds as if it has a distinct bias towards corporations and against citizens. What you can do: Contact your MP and ask them what they are doing and what they have done to stop any signing of treaties with these clauses. If they cannot show they have done anything to stop them, and do not undertake to do so, then let us know and we will publish this information and their photo. (Transcript and video inside.)

Transcript of Kelvin Thomson responds on Multilateral treaties

This question was asked after Kelvin's speech about Intergenerational Equity, where he mentioned multilateral trade treaties..
(Headings and emphases by Candobetter.net editor, for clarity.)

QUESTION: I noticed that you mentioned the multilateral trade agreements. I'm just wondering. I haven't had time to get into them myself and I'd really appreciate a speech in Parliament about their impact on our ability to control immigration and also to control the awarding of local jobs to local firms and things. And anything else you can think of. Can you speak on it off the cuff for a minute?

KELVIN THOMSON MP for WILLS: It is a very serious issue. In the past, the trade agreements were directed at tariffs and quotas - getting rid of tariffs and quotas - but they are pretty much gone. So if you enter into a trade agreement with another country now - with Korea or China or whoever - the issue is, what do they want? And the sorts of things that they want are freeing up of anything in the way of restriction between movement of people, freeing up of foreign ownership restrictions, and things of that nature. So, some of these agreements now have jumped into the area - I think - of diminishing our democratic capacity to determine our own future.

"Investor state dispute settlement clause"

And, in particular, there is a thing called the "Investor state dispute settlement clause", which is in a number of trade agreements. It's not in all of them. It is in the Korean one. It's not in the Japanese one. I assume it's in the China one, but they haven't released it yet - which is another matter of concern about these trade agreements. They get signed and we only get to see them some distance down the track.

But the Investor state dispute settlement clause allows corporations to sue governments if they believe that the decisions of governments impact adversely on their bottom line.

Health impacts

And the classic example of this is when the previous government introduced plain packaging on tobacco products that - and I think it's Phillip Morris - got themselves incorporated in Hong Kong expressly to take advantage of an investor state dispute settlement clause that we've had as part of a trade agreement with Hong Kong. And they are now suing Australia on the grounds that the plain packaging legislation disadvantages them. Now, that in itself is problematic from my point of view. I believe that governments need to be able to make democratic decisions - in this case in the health interests of the nation.

Environment impacts

It's equally problematic in relation to environmental issues. For example, there are foreign companies that wish to engage in coal-seam mining in New South Wales and Queensland and the like, and you have the prospect that if governments there knock them back, that they will be sued in relation to the Investor state dispute settlement clause.

Settlement of disputes lack normal legal standards

One feature of these clauses, which again is very unsatisfactory, is that it's not that you go to some international court which rules - you know, where you've got judges of the High Court, for example, sitting there. They are arbitration arrangements and the arbitrators come and go. They can be people who are acting for the company one day and sitting as an arbitrator the next, and then acting for a company on the day after that. So that the normal legal protection and rules concerning precedent and - you know - traditional independence and the like, are not present, in terms of these disputes.

We should not enter agreements with investor-state dispute settlement clauses in them

And my own view is that we should not enter into any trade agreements which have investor state dispute settlement clauses.

QUESTION: But do members of Parliament have any control over the signing of these things? Do they get to see the agreement?

KELVIN THOMSON: What happens, Sheila, is that the Executive has control over the treaty-making process and they enter into treaties. The treaties get layed on the floor of the Parliament and Parliament has a Treaties Committee which I chaired for quite a number of years and I'm now the Deputy Chair of - so I do have some experience with this. The Parliamentary committee takes evidence, takes submissions and so on. We can listen to people and make recommendations.

Abbot Liberal Government has majority on the Treaties Committee

There is a government majority on the Treaties Committee, as on Parliamentary Committees generally, and so you don't want to be sort of too carried away about the capacity of the Committee to do much once the treaty has been signed, but we make recommendations about whether the treaty should proceed to ratification and, from time to time Treaties Committee has made serious recommendations in relation to ratification and talked about provisions in particular treaties they regarded as unsatisfactory, but we don't have the capacity to look at treaties in the same way that United States members of the Congress do, for example. [Indistinct ?It's said that] they are able to scrutinise the text of treaties and know what is being negotiated. They're not supposed to tell people about it.

Double Standard: Corporations given privileged info; Civil Society kept in the dark

But this question about the negotiation of treaties and the process being followed is interesting because - so when the Treaties Committee talks to civil society, not government organisations and so on - they say, 'This is a highly secret process. No-one knows what's going on.' You know, the train goes into a tunnel and comes out the end of the tunnel and you've got this treaty. But when we talk to corporations, or agriculture groups and the like, they say, 'Oh, no, it's a good process. You know, they tell us what's going on and they keep us informed.' So, it's clear that there is a double standard at work. There are some people who are kept informed and know what's being discussed and negotiated, and a lot of people who don't.

As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes. They need your help today. You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?
Read all about it and take action. Originally published at https://orronggroup.wordpress.com/ as an article posted by Hootville, "Urgent: Council’s plan for parkland next to 590 Orrong Rd".

As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes.

They need your help today.

You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?

Read all about it and take action: As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes.

They need your help today.

You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?

Read all about it and take action:

Victory Square under threat, playground demolished, (yet) more cricket facilities planned. 

The words below come to us from members of a new group: No Confidence in Stonnington, many of whom live near “ground zero”. Not only have these residents been lumbered with the gross over development that is 590 Orrong Rd, they are facing compulsory acquisition of their homes – using money from the developer.

That money – which is obligatory by law – is supposed to compensate locals  for the massive impact of the development. Instead it seems that the money will be spent in ways that hurts locals more and benefit one very specific group in the community. If that’s not enough, the group has drawn our attention to a hideous new possible masterplan for the Victory Square space. It seems that people – dog walkers, parents, kids, older people, joggers, those that just enjoy a (tiny) open space – will be ignored in favour of powerful sports clubs. If what you read below upsets you, learn more and take action at their website.  

Stonnington Council proposes to place a Public Acquisition Overlay over three homes adjacent to Toorak Oval and Victory Square (Amendment C 197) (homes at 10 and 14 Aubrey St and 1aFulton Street). They have already spent over $1.4M quietly acquiring 1 Fulton Street in 2014. They are in a position to spend millions of ratepayers’ funds on potentially acquiring homes because of the developer contributions they will receive, by law, from the Lend Lease development at 590 Orrong Road.

The anticipated open space needs generated by this development should have been provided at that land. The local community should not be required to provide land for the public open space needs generated by that development and had understood the development contributions from that development would go to improving existing open space, not acquiring more land.

Another master plan for Toorak Oval and Victory Square

The existing master plan does not contemplate the expansion of the park area. However, the Council proposes to spend money on yet another master plan for Toorak Oval and Victory Square and preliminary plans indicate that they wish to spend ratepayers’ funds to acquire the three homes and turn them into cricket nets and re-allocated car parking spaces. Victory Square will be turned into a mini football/cricket oval and will see the removal of the much used playground. It is likely that it will not longer be accessible for the many dog owners, parents, children and seniors, who use the park all day, every day.

Object by Monday 2nd February If you agree that this is certainly not the best allocation of ratepayers’ funds, nor the best outcome for the wider community, not just the influential sporting groups, please object. More details and an objection form here.

Professional growth spruiker, Bernard Salt of KPMG, says that 80% of Australia does not want population growth. ("Straightening out Bananas", Property Council Congress, 2011) So how come we are being swamped?

There is a theory to explain how unpopular and costly policies survive in a 'democracy' when the benefits are focused among a few people who can organise to protect those benefits, whereas the costs are diffused among many people thus difficult to recognise and organise against. This theory explains why 80 % of Australia does not want population growth for good reasons like the cost of housing and the wrecking of the environment, but we still have it because the Growth Lobby makes billions of dollars (not just millions) out of it. (See Chapter 5 of Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence.)

The cartoon illustrates this, as an organised and wealthy rent-collecting Growth Lobby Inc. swoops with a helicopter, while people look around them, confused about what’s happening.

#CEECF5;line-height:120%;">I must start by extending a vote of appreciation to the Mayor for agreeing to debate population growth with Kelvin Thomson. Both debaters and the Moderator respectfully acknowledged the original owners of the land upon which the debate took place, the Wurundjeri.

Mayor Doyle took the position that would guarantee that the ongoing dispossession of the Wurundjeri should continue at an ever escalating rate because it was "inevitable". Kelvin Thomson's position was more respectful of the Wurundjeri and took the opposite view.

The great disappointment for many of us was the Mayor's premise that, in his opinion, population growth was inevitable and that his job was to respond to that inevitability in his role as Mayor. So he would not provide a frank opinion on whether he agreed that endless extreme population growth was unreasonable. He avoided the issue and would not concede his responsibility to the people of Melbourne who are being subjected to this ongoing process of dispossession.

The Mayor highlighted that we live in a free society where public policy debate allows this issue to be fully aired. He also explained the difference between his versions of dumb growth and smart growth. He didn't mention that a key issue is the RATE of growth - which is what concerns most people.

He praised the virtues of modern Melbourne compared to the Melbourne of the 70s and effectively claimed that we could not live in the halcyon days of the past.

He made no mention of:

• We would not be able to "live in the future" either if Australia continued its autocratically imposed self-colonisation policy indefinitely
• At 2.5% per annum, Melbourne's population growth is comparable to those of the most underdeveloped parts of Africa
• Unlike such underdeveloped countries where growth is "natural", Australia's extreme rate of growth is due to an autocratic policy of extreme self-colonisation without the consent of the Australian people
• The ABC does not support open public policy debate of this issue
• Australian homelessness is escalating at a compound rate of 3.2% per annum (doubling time 22 years)
• Australian unemployment is escalating at a compound rate of 2.3% per annum (doubling time 30 years)
• The above rates, if directly influenced by population growth, are likely to be far higher in Melbourne than the Australian averages
• There is significant evidence that population growth is directly implicated in the deterioration of the Australian economy, and that this is directly related to Australia's reduction in philanthropic aid both at home and abroad

The Mayor's (and the ABC's) approach to the issue is analogous to a public figure regarding homicide using semi-automatic weapons as "inevitable" and then proposing that nothing should be done to investigate ways to reduce this rate of homicide.

The Mayor's claim that population growth is inevitable is contrary to his policy of reducing the speed limit in the CBD to 40 kph. He claimed that this was done because nobody dies when hit by a car travelling at 40 kph or less.

The Mayor is the epitomy of what is wrong with the Australian ruling class. He appears genuinely motivated by the desire to do good, yet excludes rational, analytical, "limits to growth" thinking from his zone of responsibility. It was as if he was saying: "I was only obeying orders. The Feds told me it is inevitable. I am innocent. It's not my responsibility." I disagree. I think it is all our responsibilities.

The question is, what right have politicians and public figures to deny reality in this way? Well you might ask.

The Moderator chipped in to say there was no lack of food (in the world) because millions of tonnes of excess food was being distributed to the needy by SecondBite. SecondBite is a good cause that both the Mayor and the Moderator personally support.

So there you have it. By doing good do these two somehow justify denial of a reality that "inevitably" will do far more harm than any limited good they can otherwise do?

Infinite food in an infinite world with infinite population. Such is the nature of the illogical ruling (and moderating) class. Innumeracy does a lot to cripple analytical thinking. Australia's population will continue to double every 40 years or less, and the Mayor effectively advocates this.

On this basis, in 200 years Australia's population will be 736 million if it compounds at 1.8% per year. In 200 years Melbourne's population would be 628 million if it compounds at 2.5% per year. These are the numbers that will dictate Australia's future.

However, after infuriating many in the audience with avoidance of the real issue, the Mayor fully supported a referendum on population growth at the end of question time after the debate. For that glimmer of reasonableness we extend our thanks.

UPDATE: For the film of debate click here. The debate was attended by a 200 plus audience. The Lord Mayor showed courage under fire as he went down in the debate with only a pea-shooter of light-weight fashion statements like how many coffee shops Melbourne has vs a steady stream of deadly facts from Mr Thomson. The editors of candobetter.net are working to bring you a film of the debate, plus commentary and interviews with people who attended, ASAP. Mary Drost is to be resounding congratulated for achieving this important democratic event and also for calling for a referendum on population increase, which both Kelvin Thomson and Lord Mayor Doyle agreed would be desirable.

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle and Kelvin Thomson MP will debate the topic of Victoria's rapid and increasing population growth at Deakin Edge in Federation Square from 5.30-7pm on 13 October 2014. A few months ago Planning Backlash leader, Mary Drost, challenged Melbourne Mayor, Robert Doyle, to debate much loved Federal Member of Parliament, Kelvin Thomson, who retained his federal seat by a huge margin in an election where most other members of his party lost their seats. In 2014 Mr Thomson established Victoria First, a not-for-profit NGO to safeguard and enhance Victoria’s way of life against overpopulation. He is the only politician in Victoria to represent the people against the big business drive for rapid population growth.

Flyer attached as PDF, Word.

The rate of population growth affects people's lives by stressing services, infrastructure, and putting ever-increasing pressure on Victoria's (and Australia's) fragile environment. Residents' action groups, environment groups, flora and fauna protection groups all demonstrate and otherwise engage frequently to try and stop the brutal impacts of state-planned overpopulation on democracy, property rights, and the built and natural environment of this state. Our environmental and biodiversity protection laws are inadequate in the face of the growth onslaught.

The major portion of Australia's population growth is due to the very high rate of planned invited economic immigration in Australia. This is a situation promoted by the states, which like Victoria, all have government websites that seek to attract high numbers of immigrants to this country. Victoria's website is http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/

Successive Victorian governments from the time of Jeff Kennett's have all deliberately brought on the population squeeze that has driven them to expend resources on successive planning blueprints for the state.

The major driver behind population growth is a number of focused beneficiaries which have formed organisations in order to keep those benefits coming. Property developers, mortgage financiers and their mass media representatives predominate in the growth lobby. The mass media has interests in population growth in stimulating business for property dot coms like www.realestate.com.au and www.domain.com.au and is the growth lobby's corporate mouthpiece. Therefore Melbourne's The Age, the Financial Review and the Herald Sun constantly talk about population growth but report it in a biased way, pretending, as the government does, that it is inevitable.

Melbourne’s Mayor Robert Doyle will represent the growth lobby position by saying that growth is inevitable in urban centres and must be 'planned for'. The Mayor’s opponent, Kelvin Thomson, is advocating for a reduction in the rate of population growth, which is currently 1.82% compared with the world average of 1.1%, Russian Federation 0.2%, Korea 0.4%, China 0.5%, France 0.5%, UK 0.6%, US 0.7%, Sweden 0.8%, New Zealand 0.8%, Samoa 0.8%, French Polynesia 1.1%, India 1.2%, Indonesia 1.2%, Canada 1.2%, Haiti 1.4%, Malaysia 1.6%, Singapore 1.6%, West Bank and Gaza 3.0%. Australia's population, at its current rate of growth of 1.8% per annum, would double in 38 years. At 0.5 % per annum, France's would take 138 years to double, but France's rate is more likely to decline, so that its population will never double, whereas Australia's rate has been higher and the government intends to increase it.

The forum will address the pros and cons of population growth. There will be an opportunity to ask questions.

Presented by Planning Backlash and a coalition of resident groups.

Where: Deakin Edge

When: Monday 13 October, 5.30pm - 7pm

Price: Free

John Joseph Madigan, Independent Senator for Victoria: "Job seekers are in a tough job market. One only has to do check the Ballarat Courier or the Latrobe Valley Express from Saturday to see how many jobs are being advertised. When the government allows the employment market to be flooded with 457s, what do we expect? When the government goads industry upon industry to leave our shores, what do we expect? When the government cannot figure out how to manage its defence procurement needs over a long period, what do we expect? When the government cannot figure out how to use our abundance of natural gas for our own cheap electricity, what do we expect?" Full short speech inside, made October 1st, 2014 in Federal Parliament. Headings were added by candobetter.net editor.

Senator MADIGAN
(Victoria) (11:27): I rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No.1) Bill 2014. I have been critical of this government's budget. It is quite possibly one of the most divisive and unfair budgets we have ever seen in modern Australia. And I am not alone in this view. I have received hundreds—no, thousands—of emails and letters and phone calls from angry, disaffected Australians. They have told me this budget is unfair, unreasonable and ideologically driven. I and many others accept the government has budgetary challenges. But why should those with the least have to pay the most? Why should thousands of good hardworking Australians—those with families, those with mortgages, those who each day step up and step out to do the right thing—pay the most? Why should those who are struggling, those looking for work, those impacted by disability, those who care for others, those who are sick, those on the pension pay the most? Why should those Australians on low incomes be targeted by this ideological—some would say pathological—numbers driven budget? Why should those with the least pay the most?

Over the past six months I have received a clear message from people across Victoria and across Australia. This is a bad budget. People have told me they are angry and distressed about the changes to the Newstart waiting period. They are angry and distressed about changes to family tax benefit part A and part B. They are angry and distressed about changes to pensions. They are angry and distressed about the increase in the pension age to 70.

Unreasonableness of raising retirement to 70 yrs especially for demanding physical occupations

I have often spoken about a constituent I know called Phil. Phil works in a forge and is supporting five children. He lives outside of Melbourne. Phil earns $43,000 a year, with another $8,000 on overtime. Phil's is backbreaking work. Phil is a big and strong man, with the strength and resilience of a draft horse, but he has often said to me, 'John, I'll never last until I'm 70.' Treasurer Joe Hockey expects Phil to keep doing what he is doing for another 24 years. I say to Mr Hockey: 'Mate, you're dreaming.'

As usual, I will be brief in my remarks today. I will let my voting do the talking. But, as this legislation affects families and job seekers, I cannot help but share my view. Families are the building blocks of strong societies. A strong family makes a strong individual. Strong people are the backbone of a strong country. The relationship between government and families should be one of mutual respect. Governments should support families.

Forcing both parents into workforce when children young

Forcing both parents to be in the workforce when the youngest child turns six is not the kind of help families need. It is not the kind of thing our nation needs either, because the nation and the family are interdependent. Families are doing it tough. Most parents, particularly those in the paid workforce, recognise the importance of spending time with their children. But, for hundreds of thousands of Australian parents, the financial concerns they face overshadow their ability to do this. This is something our tax system, and my amendments, can address.

House prices add to family burden - need to look at negative gearing and other factors

House prices add to a family's financial burdens. Single- and even dual-income family first home buyers are forced to compete with baby boomer investors as well as foreign nationals to buy their home. Today in Australia, families are often second-class citizens in the housing market. Why don't we look at negative gearing, amongst other things?

Growing job insecurity prevents families from taking care of themselves

When we look at the economy and job security, we must further consider how Australians can focus their energy on their families. But we in this place are not discussing legislation which will make it easier for these families. Instead we are discussing how we can take more of their taxes away from them by doing away with benefits which were originally given to them in recognition of the important role they play. Take, for example, the removal of the current end-of-financial-year supplement, the freezing of the indexation of the family tax benefit allowance or the removal of the child add-on supplement. This legislation is not about supporting families. It is about making life harder for them.

I have circulated amendments which address these issues in a reasonable fashion. Most Australians are happy to do their bit, I believe. Most Australians are happy to take part in some of the heavy lifting our nation needs right now. But no Australian should be expected to break their back in the process.

Newstart inequities and 457 visas, rising cost to business of electricity

I would now like to address the issue surrounding the government's proposed changes to Newstart. Job seekers are in a tough job market. One only has to do check the Ballarat Courier or the Latrobe Valley Express from Saturday to see how many jobs are being advertised. When the government allows the employment market to be flooded with 457s, what do we expect? When the government goads industry upon industry to leave our shores, what do we expect? When the government cannot figure out how to manage its defence procurement needs over a long period, what do we expect? When the government cannot figure out how to use our abundance of natural gas for our own cheap electricity, what do we expect?

For these and many other reasons, Australians' expectations of government are at an all-time low. Why should it be job seekers, people who are prepared to work, people who want to work, people who are trained, equipped and able to work, who are punished because of successive governments' poor decisions which have led or contributed to their redundancies?

If people opt to work for the dole then they should be entitled to their full allowance during the six-month waiting period. If people have spent years studying as a student then that period should be recognised as work to be deducted from the exclusion period. If people would prefer to spend the exclusion period not working for the dole but rather concentrating full time on finding a job then they should still be able to receive 40 per cent of the Newstart rate.

We must create hope. We must create opportunity. We must increase the cake, not diminish it. The future of our country and the welfare of our people depend on it. We often hear about business and individuals being told to innovate. It is about time the government innovated.

Melissa Parke, ALP Member for Fremantle, West Australia, was the only MP to dissent against the passing of the new so-called anti-terrorism laws in Australia, which make huge changes to our privacy and civil rights. Ms Parke (10:45am) — I wish to start my comments on this Bill by making reference to a case that came before the House of Lords in relation to the detention of foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial under the UK's Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, where Lord Hoffman, in a dissenting judgement, said:

"This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community.

Published on Wednesday, 01 October 2014 10:44

... The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

Tony Abbott made a speech to the IPA in 2012 in which he referred to the Coalition as the "freedom party". However, as Prime Minister Mr Abbott now believes that "the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift" and that "there may be more restrictions on some so that there can be more protection for others."

I do not support a number of key elements in this Bill, and I am aware there are further even more controversial Bills coming before the parliament in the near future.

I question the premise of the government's general approach to this area of policy, which is essentially that freedoms must be constrained in response to terrorism; and that the introduction of greater obscurity and impunity in the exercise of government agency powers that contravene individual freedoms will both produce, and are justified in the name of, greater security.

So far the debate on this issue has occurred within a frame that posits a direct relationship between, on the one hand, safety and civility in our everyday lives and, on the other, the powers that impinge upon and make incursions into individual freedom.

If we want to continue our lives free from terrorism and orchestrated violence — so the argument goes — we have to accept shifting the balance between freedom and constraint away from the observance of basic rights and towards greater surveillance, more interference, deeper silence.

Let me say that no one should be fooled into believing it is as simple as that.

The truth is that the remarkable peace, harmony, and security we enjoy in Australia is in fact produced and sustained by our collective observance of freedoms and human rights, rather than existing in spite of such values and conditions. It is wrong to say that we have been complacent about security on two counts. First, because we have strong, well-resourced, and competent security agencies, and second because our commitment to a way of life that puts faith in freedom, respect and tolerance, that puts faith in democracy and the rule of law, is itself productive of peace and shared security.

These are the reasons we must be so careful when we legislate to constrain those freedoms — because contrary to the reductive argument that says we're making a straight trade of less freedom for more safety, the reality is likely to be, and indeed has proved to be many times in the past, that constraining our fundamental liberties achieves nothing more than making us less free and in fact does ourselves harm through licensing the abuse of powers.

In the wake of the past few weeks' delivery by government, assisted by many media outlets, of "existential threat" and "panic/don't panic" messages, many people in the Australian community feel understandably confused and anxious. Members of Australia's Muslim communities may fear that the PM's 'restrictions on some' message applies particularly to them. If that is the case, then surely it is an approach that can only foster fear, mistrust and division, the very opposite of what is needed in terms of investing in community harmony, safety and human security in its broadest sense.

[Speaker], I recognise the process by which this Bill has come forward – and of course I understand that it contains a number of amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act that represent unobjectionable adjustments put forward off the back of the Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia's National Security Legislation.

I am also grateful for the recent consideration of the draft Bill provided by the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security (JCSIS), and I believe the amendments the Committee has recommended represent improvements – but not, in my view, sufficient improvements.

One critical point to grasp is the fact that the proposed laws are not a response to recent events involving the emergence of Islamic State, and the existence of people with criminal intentions based on their adherence to an extreme and deranged world-view.

It was a surprise therefore to see the editorial in The Australian on Monday where, under the heading 'Homegrown terror threat needs new tools to fight it', it rushed to conclude, "The new counter-terrorism laws are not an attack on free speech; they are a protection against an evolving threat" before acknowledging that "Any new counter-terrorism laws should be scrutinised by the parliament" and that "There is also a role for the media and other non-government groups, to offer analysis of proposed laws alongside laws currently operating".

That analysis and commentary certainly should be occurring, but it's hard not to have the sense that there is too much fierce agreement in this space at the moment as a result of people believing that we currently face some completely new and unprecedented terror threat.

The reality is — as we have seen from very well publicised operations recently — that law enforcement agencies have clearly been able to operate effectively on the basis of existing laws and there has not been convincing evidence of inadequacies in the existing legal framework that warrant the broad extensions of powers we see here. I am particularly concerned that this Bill entrenches and amplifies the lack of protection for whistleblowers regarding intelligence information and penalise with up to 10 years jail the legitimate actions of journalists and others doing their jobs in holding the government to account in the public interest.

There have been numerous examples of governments, defence, intelligence and law enforcement agencies here in Australia and elsewhere abusing their powers that have only come to light via Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers regarding for instance the improper mass surveillance of civilians, the misuse of our aid program, and spying on foreign governments, including for the commercial benefit of corporations.

There are concerns that the legislation does not make any distinction between someone acting to sabotage a security intelligence operation and potentially putting security officers' lives at risk, which should rightly attract significant penalties, and persons disclosing information in the public interest where no such danger is present, but which may for instance be politically embarrassing.

It is no comfort from the Explanatory Memorandum that there will be a prosecutorial discretion to consider the public interest when deciding whether to prosecute a person — this kind of consideration should attract a specific exemption in the legislation — otherwise there is a very real danger that the provisions will produce a chilling effect on the willingness of the media to report legitimate matters of public interest.

We are assured that the significant impunity for breaking the law that is granted to security officials engaged in SIOs only applies when the officers are carrying out their duties as authorised and is not a green light for corruption or abuse of power. It is unsatisfactory in my view that the external oversight of special intelligence operations is limited to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, rather than the more extensive oversight that applies to the AFP's controlled operations. The Member for Denison has highlighted the deficiencies in Australia's oversight of intelligence services relative to other countries such as the UK.

On the question of press freedom and media scrutiny, the editorial in The West Australian yesterday took issue with the new specific provisions, arguing that "they fail to strike a balance that does not unduly limit the ability of journalists to report on matters of national security. Any controls of this sort must be carefully considered and minimised. In this instance, there is a concern that the impetus to act on the terrorist threat may have led to the proposed laws being rushed and not considered as fully as they might have been."

And I would contrast the curious yet telling gulf between the nicely timed, neatly packaged and government facilitated media access to the recent AFP anti-terror operations and the utter silence, stonewalling and denial of access to operations that involve asylum seekers.

On this I agree with Mark Day, who wrote in Monday's Australian that,

"Last week we saw much commentary about how state and federal police provided on-the-spot video and still pictures of their raids against a terror group believed to be planning a random beheading in Australia.

How fortunate it was for the government that the raids came precisely as the parliament was considering new anti-terror powers — tougher laws to protect our freedoms by removing them. Raids of this nature involving 800 coppers for one arrest are obviously newsworthy. Police PRs were beside themselves with delight. You want pictures? How many? They fed the narrative of a government alert and anything but insouciant.

Now make the obvious comparison. For more than a year the government has refused to give any detail about any "on sea" activity related to people smuggling or asylum-seekers. This is because secrecy suits it. Secrecy is the government's starting point."

I understand that one of the legitimate bases for this Bill is the necessary adjustment to cover the kinds of technological change that have occurred over the last twenty years and I note the considered comments of the Shadow Attorney-General in this regard. I nevertheless have concerns about the scope of the provisions, especially in relation to computers and computer networks, including access to third-party hardware or communications. These provisions are the equivalent of a physical search warrant for a house that allows you to search an arbitrary number of other houses.

The JSCIS Report notes that public submissions were made by the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law calling for two categories of improvement in this area: the first being a 'minimal intrusion' test requiring other options for acquiring the required intelligence to have been used before ASIO has recourse to a computer network or third-party asset or communication; and the second being a further refinement in terms of scope so that a warrant would only access those parts of a target computer that are reasonably necessary for the acquisition of the relevant intelligence.

Unfortunately neither of these sensible proposals were taken up as recommendations. Instead the broad requirement that access must be 'reasonable in all the circumstances' was considered sufficient.

In my view, this is one of the clear areas where we may be licensing the potentially improper infringement of privacy and the possible misuse of personal information and communications without due consideration to the dangers involved, and without due care and restriction when it comes to those powers.

For an example of how this government regards the so-called balance between security and freedom, one can look to the proposed abolition of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. The Prime Minister announced the abolition of this critical office and function earlier this year as part of its 'war against red-tape'. Other casualties of this bizarre war of self-harm include environmental protections, financial services safeguards, and the framework to address climate change and encourage the development of renewable energy. In this way, the so-called war on red tape is unpicking the vital threads of our social fabric, our social compact.

With this Bill, the essential oversight of security legislation and powers is being undermined when it should be strengthened.

As others have noted, the Attorney-General was an active member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security when the Committee issued a report with respect to the very legislation we debate here, calling for the assessment of the draft bill by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Of course, thanks to the government, that position has been vacant since April, and was to be scrapped.

I am glad that as a result of the outcry on this aspect of security oversight in particular, the government has reversed its position – though unfortunately not in time for this Bill to have been appropriately scrutinised.

I believe that at the very least this legislation should incorporate sunset clauses so that the provisions can be subject to review and discontinuance if not found to be necessary.

[Speaker], I want to conclude by returning to the point I made at the beginning about what is really at issue when we expand the capacity and power of state agencies to infringe upon the privacy and freedom of citizens, and at the same time constrain the ability of citizens to examine and discuss the use of those powers.

There is a lot of talk about the danger of complacency when it comes to security threats, including terrorism. I don't see evidence of that complacency, and none has been put forward. Australia is a remarkably secure and peaceful nation. Our law enforcement, intelligence, and defence agencies and personnel do excellent work on our behalf.

If there is any complacency, it is in relation to the very real dangers that lie in failing to recognise, value and speak up for our fundamental rights, values and freedoms. We have seen what happens when state agencies exercise improper power without effective safeguards; without effective oversight and accountability mechanisms.

We'd do well to reflect upon this now as we consider changes in this Bill and in others that seek to re-set our laws and values in ways that may not only be ill-designed to protect us from the dangers and horrors we seem inclined to over-state, but might in fact wear and fray the fabric of our freedom, trust, and faith in government.

Draft Planning and Development Bill 2014 (P&D Bill) and Planning and Environment Court Bill 2014 (P&E Court Bill) now in progress within the Queensland Dept of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) threaten all that has been achieved in defeating Rainbow Shores Stage 2 so far. The Bills would provide our local Govt. with the power to make future planning changes, and take decisions regarding this development (as well as many others) without any public scrutiny or control. We know how woeful their performance on RS2 has been to date. They cannot safely be allowed these additional planning and approval powers.

I apologise for the extremely late notice on this matter but I have only just been informed of the situation. This lateness is itself a direct result of the across the board funding cuts by both State and Federal Govts. to community Environmental networks and the resultant lowered capacity these networks now have to respond quickly and adequately to such things.

If you have a bit of time this weekend to make a quick comment on the two bills it would be greatly appreciated. Attached is a submission template drafted by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO). This template allows you to easily respond to both draft Bills. Please simply follow the instructions provided in the grey highlighted sections. Do this to the extent that you can in the time available and reword the listed points of concern to the extent you feel comfortable doing. Please remember to delete the grey highlighting and instruction statements before sending.

Please also consider that something at this late stage is better than nothing at all. Even a brief extract from the attached summary put into the process in your name will be helpful.

Your comment should also request an extended comment period due to this existing unfair limitation on informed public comment.

On a more optimistic note, it is likely that these new Bills will not be implemented until after the 2015 State election. This provides yet another sound reason why a concerted community effort must be made to vote out this intractably non-consultative Government. A term in opposition, and a need to re-win their place in office, might make them sincerely and humbly commit to governing for everyone, and not just for property developers and mining corporations.

Please enquire by email to info[AT]saveinskip.org.au or call on 0422 260 169 if you want any more info.
See also: http://www.saveinskip.org.au/

Is Australia governed by morons? Australia preaches about the Asian Century but behaves like the 18th Century British colonists who originally invaded Terra Australis. If Australia understood what it means to be Asian it would realize that most Asian countries have predominantly indigenous populations. For example, Indonesia, China, Japan, Korea, Myanmar, Thailand and the Philippines to name but a few.

None of these countries run mass migration programs like Australia’s. Australia leads the world in this category. Asian countries are not selling off their assets and housing to foreigners like Australia does; while crying crocodile tears about carbon emissions as they rapidly expand their fossil fuel exports to pay for population growth that the country cannot afford. With one of the highest costs of living of any country the annual growth of the Federal Budget combined with growing Government debt far exceeds the capacity of the growing economy to finance.

Asian populations grow at varying rates, depending on the level of development and the rates of natural births and deaths. None of these countries subject their people to mass migration as a tool to drive GDP growth in irrational contempt for the social, environmental and economic consequences.

If China used mass migration at the same rate as Australia's, it would be flooding the country with over 16 million migrants per year. China's reported population growth rate is 0.6% per annum. Australia's deliberately engineered population growth rate is 1.8% per annum.

Australia is a dishonest, hypocritical country built on a lie that government media fully supports while it preaches about humanity and the environment.

The death cult of Migration Assured Destruction is alive and well in Australia. Even the US example of how to screw up a country is not enough to educate Australia’s ruling class. This is a unique recipe for a cock up.

The argument that population growth is inevitable is as defeatist as the argument that the human race must destroy itself together with the environment that supports it.

The 20th century saw the developed world set the example of fossil fuel consumption for the developing world to follow. Now, in the 21st century, Australia insists on continuing to set the example of ridiculous and unsustainable, migration-based population growth as an example of how underdeveloped countries should behave once they have developed?

The premise of most demographic gurus is that population growth will slow as developing countries become wealthy. If that is true, then why does Australia deliberately drive population growth rates as high as those of some of the most underdeveloped areas of Africa and roughly 4 times the OECD country average? It certainly isn't about prioritising refugee intake.

Australia is an insult to the intelligence of most Australians. The primary responsibility for this reckless stupidity lies with both Government and its tool the ABC; both of whom are beyond the control of the Australian people.

There is no democracy in Australia when it comes to open public policy debate of population growth management and maximising Australia's potential to act humanely and sustainably both at home and abroad. It's just not up for discussion; and that is the essence of what Australia's autocratic "death cult" is all about. Cut philanthropic aid at home and abroad and destroy the environment; all in the name of profit - otherwise misdescribed as "economic growth".

Jill Redwood, as coordinator of Environment East Gippsland, conducted a landmark environmental court case that saw her group awarded damages against the Government Forestry corporation, VicForests, who were told to conduct proper investigations for the presence of threatened species in areas they logged and to design and enact plans to safeguard them according to the law. Three years later the Giant Trees Walk on Brown Mountain, which EEG had created in order to develop awareness of the rape of East Gippsland's forests, has been destroyed by persons unknown, equipped with heavy equipment and chainsaws.

"All the way along here to our Brown Mountain forests - which was the test case in this court case - they have cut down every big tree along the way."

The case proved that VicForests were not abiding by the government's own rules. They have to do prelogging surveys before they go in and log areas that might have threatened species in them. Prior to the court case they were not doing this at all. "If they couldn't find them, that was better. They didn't want to know about them."

They've changed the law for poteroos. Where they used to find them, they have to protect 450ha. then they changed the law, so now they only have to protect 50ha and this doesn't have to be in the detection sites. So, if one is found right in the middle of where they plan to log, they can protect 50ha somewhere over the other side of the gully. This law was changed under the current (Baillieu then Napthine) Liberal government, but the case began under the Bracks (Labor) Government in 2009. The Liberal Government carried on the bad work of the Labor Party. The Liberal Party wanted to change the Code of Forest Practices, which is a mess of laws and management plans and codes which interconnect, but the Code did say that they have to abide by the management plan and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. So what this Liberal Government wanted to do was to change the code or the wording in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, so that a minister could just say, "No, where you find threatened species, you don't have to protect them; go in and log." So they were going to change the whole thing just by adding one extra sentence in. But they probably haven't done that because they realised that would open up more legal cases to challenge that change. All the laws are interconnected, so if they change that one, then it will may then contradict or contravene another law or laws. It goes back to the RFAs and all sorts of things.

At the moment they are carrying out pre-logging surveys, but EEG calls them 'mickey mouse surveys' because they are so poorly done and poorly financed. The people doing the pre-logging surveys might find a tenth of what is there because they just don't have the time and the resources. That suits VicForests very well. That's how they are getting away with logging areas that have threatened species now.

The court case took a huge toll on the Environment East Gippsland group. They had saved up $40,000 which was not really enough but once that people heard that there was a court case to save the forests, they were able to access huge public support.

Nothing has really changed, unfortunately. A few areas have been protected, probably where they did not want to log really. Recently EEG found them logging protected rainforest sites of significance. EEG threatened to sue them over this but VicForests gave in before they got to the Court steps.

The logging industry is a huge liability for the Victorian Government. VicForests is a government-owned logging monopoly now. It has cost the government millions to defend it in court.

It's really another form of public land-grab

It's about a land-grab. It's the real-estate they want, not the old growth forest. The old growth forest doesn't have very good timber for logging needs because the trees are old and twisted. But, where old growth grows and where these nice rich, lush, wildlife rich and valuable forests grow is on the highest productivity land. That is, land with flat topography, deep soil, high rainfall - perfect for plantations. Hey, and it's public land! Public money! Clear the forests, put in these nice single-species tree farms ... Sucker public has to pay for it. That's what's been happening for 40 years. Where we used to have this landscape of beautiful old growth diverse forests, with the threatened tiger quoll, the owls, all these wonderful creatures here, with little pockets of logging. Now, it's these little pockets of old growth in this sea of tree-farms for the overseas pulp industry.

EEG, whilst preparing their case against VicForests, set up infrared photography in the forests and were the first to film a long-footed poteroo gathering brush for its nest by carrying it under its tail. We don't know half of what we have in these forests. Gippsland is still such an unknown area. The number of threatened species here, both plant and animal, is 7 times the state average. Jill describes it as 'a Noah's ark' which should be protected as such and says that, if only the government could realise the value in this. Ecotourism is the part of the tourist industry that is just growing phenomenally. People want to come out here. They want to experience nature. They want to see the wildlife. So much money is being spent to prop up the destructive industry of logging - which, if it were a person, would be a 'welfare bludger' and a vandal, says Jill - to destroy these areas that could be the showcase of Australia. It could be globally important to take these international visitors and take them on night walks and show them the gliders and stand at the base of this massive big tree that's 15m around. Instead the government's loggers are just cutting them down every day! They're just destroying them!