Mr Brumby

Andrew Chapman is calling for a Royal Commission into the Victorian (Wonthaggi) Desalination Plant. We publish here his comments and some early discussion. We also publish some correspondence with Tim Holding, the Minister for Water under the Brumby government. There seems to be wide support for a royal commission into the matter, which is perceived widely as corrupt. The matter of desalination plants is a huge one in Australia where such plants, not necessary when we had a population of 17m only a decade ago, have been introduced in nearly every state with the excuse that our growing population requires them. The public have not been adequately consulted on the population growth induced by ill-considered government policy nor on the introduction of these plants themselves. What is for sure is that almost no-one likes these plants and governments are bitterly resented for having forced them on Australians. (More about Wonthaggi Desal plant here.)

Andrew Chapman writes:

The Bracks Government won its last election on a policy of opposing a desalination plant to augment Melbourne's water supply. When Ted Baillieu suggested a small desalination plant the Bracks team ridiculed that suggestion but on election Bracks reneged on its election policy and approved the construction of a large scale desalination plant at Wonthaggi.

Times moved on and water storages are now either full or filling rapidly with Melbourne's storages set to reach 60% capacity in the next two or three weeks. Melbourne's water storages have not increased because of the desalination plant, it is a long way from being finished, but because weather cycles moved from drought to floods, something which civil engineers consider when planning water supplies. Taxpayers and consumers are to pay for this very expensive water supply option regardless of whether or not it is needed. The desalination plant will require large amounts of electrical power to operate. Perhaps if the Bracks and Brumby governments pursued water conservation and recycling this huge cost burden would have been avoided.

Whilst the government held a particular view it is clear the planning process did not adequately consider alternative options or submissions presented to the EES that, with evidence, argued that the desalination plant should not be pursued. Many people will remember how the planning process operated right down to the government authorising police files on objectors being handed over to the contractor.

Melbourne's water storages are now at 58.3% (still plenty of wet weather to come), same time last year 35.0% and the year before 26.8%.

The government did not have a mandate for the desalination plant and the planning system has failed Victorians resulting in huge water debts to be met through the purchase of water that is not needed. This is not a small project with a capital cost originally estimated to be no greater than $3.1 but more recent estimates at $5.7b and suggestions that it may be more like $7b when finished.

There are three appendixes below: Appendix A, "Communications with Tim Holding," and Appendix B, "Comments about a Royal Commission from a circular back in March of this year." Appendix C contains some media coverage.

What you can do

If a Royal commission is to get up and running it will only do so with widespread public support. If you could pass your comments on to Andrew Chapman or post them as comments here on candobetter, we can also work towards canvassing the mainstream media. When the storages hit 60% capacity, the time will be appropriate to launch a major campaign.

So, Royal Commission into the Desal Plant - What do the people think?

CONTACTContact by email Andrew Chapman or telephone 56741266 or 0438567412

Appendix A: RECENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH TIM HOLDING MP, THE MINISTER WHO ADVOCATED THE DESAL PLANT

__________________________________________________________________________

As at 19/7/11 there has been no response from Tim Holding.

-------------------------------
14/7/11
Re: Catchment Rainfall and Runoff Forecasts for Melbourne's Dams

Dear Tim,

Perhaps you could confirm whether such information exists?

Regards

Andrew Chapman

-----------------------------------
13/7/11
Re: Catchment Rainfall and Runoff Forecasts for Melbournes Dams

Dear Andrew

Thank you for your email.

As I am no longer the Victorian Water Minister it would be more appropriate for you to direct your request to the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

FOI Unit
Department of Sustainability and Environment
PO Box 500
EAST MELBOURNE VIC 8002

Yours sincerely

Tim Holding

-----------------------------------------

13/7/11

Catchment Rainfall and Runoff Forecasts for Melbourne's Dams

Tim Holding MP

Dear Mr Holding

Catchment Rainfall and Runoff Forecasts
The adoption by the Bracks/Brumby governments of a desalination plant at Wonthaggi to supply water to Melbourne was no doubt based on that government's perceived need for additional water.

When Melbourne's water storages fell to low levels I expect that you, as Water Minister, would have sought expert advice on the long term rainfall and runoff for the catchments supplying the storage dams.

Could you please provide me with, or direct me to where I would find, copies of all the reports and advice provided to you on the catchment rainfall and runoff?

Regards

Andrew Chapman

__________________________________________________________________________

As at 19/7/11 there has been no response from Tim Holding.

------------------------------------

3/3/11

Royal Commission into Desal Project

Timothy Holding MP,

Dear Mr Holding,

It appears from your comments in the media that you think the desalination plant, originally estimated at no more than $3.1b and now at considerably more, is good value for Victorian taxpayers and consumers. If you think the cost, social and environmental impacts are justifiable then I imagine you will be happy to support a community move to establish a Royal Commission into the planning and approval process for the project.

It could deal with, but not be limited to, the Bracks/Brumby government's involvement in the process, the role of Ministers and party advisers who worked in the public service, any influence they may have had on process, whether or not the evidence produced for the EES was appropriate or balanced and how the process considered submissions by the public.

The answers to these matters may be readily available and if a Royal Commission is implemented you and your fellow ex Ministers would no doubt have an opportunity to commission consultants and lawyers to present your case. It may determine that your decisions were soundly based but could also reveal an opportunity to abandon the project without cost to Victorians.

As you can appreciate people are shocked by the recent revelations that the cost of this project has escalated and that it may cost $23.5b by 2030.

I look forward to you and your fellow ex Ministers supporting a Royal Commission into the desalination plant approval process.

Regards

Andrew Chapman

-----------------------
________________________________________________________

Appendix B: SOME COMMENTS IN MARCH THIS YEAR ABOUT A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE DESAL PLANT

Andrew Chapman distributed the following statement in an email. Below this statement are a number of very interesting comments from the public.

Andrew Chapman:

"Yes I do intend to go forward with the intention of getting a Royal Commission Inquiry into the desal plant approval process. It is our one and only big chance to expose the planning system for what it is and what occurred under the previous government. If we don't do something the bureaucrats will eventually persuade the new government to go down the same path on newer proposals. The reason I think we should have high expectations is that it affects so many people in a big way.

Remember when it was announced by Bracks and Thwaites on the same day people were told their properties would be taken, the legal costs awarded against campaigners when they were denied any opportunity to appeal against the decision, then when the government found they required an EES the way in which that was done and then handing over police files on objectors to the contractor.

Then there's the Banks. Westpac signed the Ecuador Principle and made it part of their advertising campaign and yet the way this project was handled was not much different to what happens in third world dictatorships.

All the time people argued that they were going down the wrong path but the Bracks/Brumby obsession could not be stopped.

I think as a starter we should be opening up discussion with as many people and groups as possible. If there are enough people interested in a Royal Commission we should then start to let the media know. We are all burdened with this social, economic and environmental disaster so people should feel free to add their bit in any way they feel they can contribute."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responses

Thank you very much, Mary. I hoped you would forward it. You might also like to mention my blog http://reengineeringaustralia.wordpress.com. The model I refer to is simply a 1 sq. km grid laid over the entire country, where we use on-the-ground and satellite information to populate each element with relevant data. After that, you can apply all sorts of rules and computations to evaluate the usefulness or the sensitivity of that particular element for a particular usage (including “don’t you dare touch it”!).

Regards
Jim W
-------------------------------
Anything to make them accountable and process transparent is worth it!! This must be prevented if at all ever stopped? Id love to know why the contract cant be terminated?

Sheryl
-------------------------------

yes it does, but I fear the chances are small.

best regards Stephen C

-------------------------------

Of course it's corruption. But the reality of it is that our government is Big Business and our Parliament is powerless to stop us being sold into slavery. Most boiled frogs accept the propaganda that we live in a democracy and that our Parliament is Government.

Even if you do manage to get a Royal Commission, it's terms of reference will not be able to tackle the reasons for how such wholesale corruption could have taken place.

And don't get me started on Laws and the Justice system.

Ray

-------------------------------

I have had a career in civil/structural engineering, town planning and IT, but I simply cannot get my head around what professional, accounting and ethical processes could possibly justify the Wonthaggi desalination plant. I had an exchange of emails with Rosemary West about my blog on sustainable population and I quoted the desalination plant as an example of where the land usage model I proposed could be have been used in the design phase or, given the current catastrophe, to chart all of the problems needing attention. Here is what I said to Rosemary on this topic (with a little subsequent expansion):

Did the State Government investigate every possible site along the coast before selecting Wonthaggi ? If so, what were the criteria used and what were the scores of the various sites ?

If they did not do this, did they select the site for technical, financial, political or governmental reasons ? If so, what were those reasons ?

If they did not select the site, was it selected by the contractor ? If so, were a number of contractors approached to tender for the project ? If so, were they in agreement as to the suitability of the site? If not, did any of them suggest alternative sites ? What were the various contractors’ reasons for selecting any particular site ?

If only one contractor was approached to tender, what were the reasons for selecting that contractor ? If the contractor is a consortium, what due diligence was carried out to satisfy probity requirements ?

I have worked on road and rail projects in the UK, East Africa and Australia. I came to Australia to work on the WA Standard Gauge Railway in 1965, so I do have some idea of where the costs lie in constructing such projects. I have done a little research, looking at the costs/lane (roads) and costs/line (railways) in the 1960s. I projected these to the current time, in accordance with the fall in currency values. Broadly speaking, I believe that infrastructure projects today are mostly costing about double what one would expect. I think this is largely due to the finance models in use today and any investigation should include a discussion on the appropriateness of these for constructing infrastructure projects (as opposed to perhaps managing them afterwards.

Here are a few books which I think are required reading for anyone wishing to participate in this latter discussion:

“Pigs at the trough: lessons from Australia’s decade of corporate greed” by Adam Schwab.

“Zombie economics: how dead ideas still walk among us.” by John Quiggin.

“Our corrupt legal system: why everyone is a victim (except rich criminals)” by Evan Whitton. [Evan Whitton home-page (Ed.)]

This last is a little bit out of left field, but I think it is important because it describes the difficulties (and enormous cost) of the adversarial system used in anglophone countries. An important point is the way in information can be hidden or excluded from consideration by courts and inquiries.

I hope you (and perhaps others) find these remarks helpful in moving things along in this matter.

Regards,

Jim W

-------------------------------

1. The desal Royal Commission is essential for several reasons. Firstly, to extract accountability from the previous government, and, secondly, to limit the excesses of the current government.

2. Its not party political but necessary for restoration of public confidence in politics of all shades.

3. Given my druthers, I would like to see a Royal Commission into all Public Private Partnerships, over the last 30 years.

All strength to your arm,

Don K
-------------------------------

Yes, it is essential. Are there plans?
Your correspondent doesn't mention the funding scandals that implicated the Labor Party all the way to Queensland.
The whole thing was a total disaster and according to the Fin Review, Tuesday 3 March 2011, p. 7,

"Even if Victorians don't use a drop of water from the state's desalination plant, it will cost them more than $600 million a year for a quarter of a century, new documents show."

Sheila N

-------------------------------

I agree that how the DeSal project was handled was appalling….and it’s not the only one. Billions of taxpayers’ funds have been spent on projects that we in the community (those who finance these mega projects) neither want nor need.

DeSal, the NS pipeline and Channel Deepening all had its opponents spied on and well orchestrated campaigns to denigrate them whilst promoting the project as being the only alternative. That our elected representatives and we as a community have tolerated this lop sided “contest” for so long is a worry in itself.

And there’s little doubt there’s be more to come in future if we can’t change the way we do things. E.g. the reported $9.5 billion+ to do to Westernport what a handful of shippers and truckers want.

I keep coming back to my main themes:

· An extra 75,000 people per year into Melbourne and their housing, food and transport requirements can’t have any other outcome whilst ever we are on the “business as usual” trajectory. Population pressures (driven by those few faceless entities that benefit from population growth) are at the root of this endless expansion industry.

· Those vested interest groups and faceless entities have too great an influence on our elected representatives. They enjoy armchair rides through open doors to the offices and dining tables of those we elect – whilst the likes of you and I (and many other well meaning, well informed, well educated and altruistic persons) are left outside wringing our hands and waiting perhaps months for a 30 minute meeting with the Minister or more likely his lackey. Meanwhile the bulldozer flattens Westerfields or whatever other special place we are concerned about)

· Our present governance arrangements have allowed this inequitable access to influence to permeate how decisions are made, because:

· Those we elect once every 4 years are not legally obliged to do any of the things they led us to believe they were committed to during their election campaigns. Generally they have misled and disappointed us, and our only recourse at present is to wait another 4 years to elect the next lot who don’t have any legal obligations to abide by their undertakings either. Our influence - once every four years as we shuffle into the polling booth is perfunctory, indeed illusory.

Somehow or other we need to find a way to have more direct and regular input into the decisions made by our elected representatives – Direct democracy. Contentious issues and those where our local MP doesn’t have his/her own firm view, local polls could be held to guide the MP on how to vote in parliament. State-wide and national sissies could be resolved via referendum. It is working well elsewhere e.g. In Switzerland where voters not only elect the government, they also directly vote on policy issues and legislation passed by the parliament. So why not here?

A very interesting and relevant program on ABC RN Rear Vision recently on how such a system works in Switzerland is well worth reading/listening to. Here’s the link http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2010/3047700.htm

-------------------------------

So- If a Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference would address how we could better handle decision making processes on contentious and difficult environmental/social and economic issues like the ones we are so familiar with I’d be all for it.

Thanks for keeping us so well informed and in the loop Mary

Cheers
Jenny W
-------------------------------

I don't think there is any prospect of the current State government deciding on a Royal Commission into the project. The Desal was a decision of the then State government and we might not like the decision but I can't see what the grounds would be for establishing a RC. Bearing in mind too, that a Royal Commission would cost millions to conduct.
Regards, David.

Yes, yes, yes! I'm sure the Greens will support it as well. We knew at the time that if we put in the right conservation strategies, we could generate the same amount of water. This was publicised and ignored so that big corporations could get a Salary from the people of Victoria for life. If the Royal Commission would expose this travesty, let's support it 100%

Gillian C
-------------------------------

Happy to go ahead with asking for a royal commission.

June H

-------------------------------

I agree. Particularly I can not believe that the tax payers of this state are saddled with that massive bill AND the destruction of a lovely area. Talk about a lose/lose situation. I think the terms of the RC should investigate the possibility to minimize $ loss and not go ahead with any aspect of the wretched thing. Remember, the Greens were against it from the start, and the Green candidate for Bass was one of the leading anti-desal campaigners - Neil Rankine. He is a great resource and a fountain of knowledge on the issue.

Cheers
Wendy R

-------------------------------

The argument for a Royal Commission is overwhelming: How was the assessment made-comparing all alternatives? How was the size determined? Was the evaluation of this project fully integrated with other measures, in particular the N/S pipeline and water recycling plans? What was the process for evaluating the most suitable site? What was the basis for selecting the successful tenderer and awarding the contact? What were the true circumstances of commercial in confidence which prevented the Gov't from informing the public beforehand on these issues? What was the basis for electing the extortionist pay rates for this project and what were/are these and all the attendant site awards/provisions? What truth is there to suggestions that the unions involved are selling or seeking other benefits in exchange for the right for workers to work on this project? What was the Gov't policy for managing public opinion and how was this managed and controlled? How much attention did the Gov't give to seeking public opinion and to have genuine consultation with the communities affected? What was the quality of examination of the environmental impacts? What consultants were engaged for this purpose, how was this process handled and what were they paid? There are other issues as well, but surely this is more than enough!

Reg B
-
-------------------------------

You will recall that the EES process was totally flawed. Rather than it examining all alternatives (including the key one of doing nothing) it was
relegated to an examination of effects after the go ahead had been given.

Bracks in his helicopter said the decision had been made and now there could be an EES.

A Royal Commission could also look at the lack of flexibility (ie cancelling the project) caused by putting it into private hands.

Geoff M
-------------------------------

And when they dug up 5000 artifacts what happened to the 2007 legislation designed to conserve and protect aboriginal cultural history and heritage.?
Bev W
-------------------------------

I certainly wholeheartedly agree with your plan. You certainly have our support. Don't know if I mentioned to you also but I intend going to the Ombudsman to ask him to revisit the manner in which the Macarthur windfarm planning permit was amended in July 2010, with so many changes that it hardly resembles the original plan for which they were given approval in 2006. However that will take me a long time getting everything ready for my request and haven't found a moment yet !!!
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you.

Annie G.
-------------------------------

Given Victorians are delivering $2m a day towards this project I think an investigation is more than warranted.

There should be an investigation into the role of the union super funds who invested in this lucrative gravy train. Were independent super funds, such as AMP or MLC or even self-managed super funds given an opportunity to weigh up the investment? I doubt it. I believe an investigation would show that the entire exercise has vastly enriched the CFMEU workers, to the competitive detriment of the entire Victorian construction industry, and enriched the super funds.

Are Bracks and Brumby now on the boards of any of those super funds?

I think this trend to enrich “ALP type” super funds will rapidly shift to Canberra and we are likely to see the bulk of rorting going through the Carbon Tax mechanism and particularly the $10bn Bob Brown Green Bank that will be used to prop up these investments.

Tim L
-------------------------------
Of course there needs to be an Royal Commission.

I presented at the Panel giving advice that the expert technological advice in particular about acid sulfate soil and its eventual disturbance, had been distorted and altered to present a picture of no harm will be done by this Desal excavation of this coastal soil..

Words such as probable were altered to unlikely or similar phrases' There were no recommendations about further testing to establish the extent of this Acid Sulfate Soil l which has a potential to destroy water fish and plants when it is exposed to oxygen and water is withdrawn and returned to the aquifer. I have a substantial submission in which I cited such watering down to the point of negligent culpability and lying.

I have been informed and some items in the local news have relayed that Acid Sulfate Soil had become a major problem.. I also believe the National Policies on disposal of this contaminated soil have been ignored. Mitigation with lime has not been used in appropriate amounts.

I spoke with the project Engineer at an open day earlier this year and he was totally ignorant of the type of soil he was digging up and or how it should be mitigated/managed.

I was enraged about the way I was treated at Panel Hearings in Pakenham when the Chairperson - a woman - was extremely rude to me. I believe discriminated against me because during my 10 minute presentation with power point and handouts which had been an effort of extreme intensity, she stated that I was "holding up lunch" for the panel.

I am am applied scientist and retired University Senior Lecturer . I have studied these soils for over 7 years and I was invited to (perhaps to dumb me down) to join the Government committee of the day. I felt patronised and realised that there was no intent to be sincere in this inquiry.

My colleagues in this protest campaign had undertaken to examine all 25 volumes of the Desal EES reports all agreed that the recommendations had been watered down on each and every occasion in the Executive Summary.

I would be happy to attend any Inquiry and make my outrage known.
Bev W
-------------------------------

Appendix C: MEDIA ARTICLES ON THE DESAL PLANT

TRANSCRIPTS FOLLOW:

Stateline, Age, ABC, Transcripts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABC's Victorian Stateline Program of 31/7/09

TAMARA OUDYN, PRESENTER: The State Government announced this week who it’s chosen to build and operate Australia's largest desalination plant at Wonthaggi. It also revealed it’s agreed to act as a lender of last resort to sure up finance for the project, which will be a public/private partnership. Most of the detail, including financial aspects, hasn't been released. Water Minister Tim Holding wasn't available to speak to Stateline, but here’s some of what he had to say to Jon Faine on ABC Radio this morning.

JON FAINE, ABC RADIO PRESENTER: Why’s it being called a PPP if it’s underwritten by Treasury? It’s not really a PPP and wouldn't it really be cheaper and simpler to build it as state infrastructure?

TIM HOLDING, WATER MINISTER: Well it is a public-private partnership. And the question you’ve asked is: would it have been cheaper to build it as a public – provide it as public sector provided project. And as part of this project – or part of this process, we are required to establish a public sector comparator, which is a tool which tells us what it would have cost us to build this project if the public sector had assumed all of the risk and built the project itself. And the public sector comparator tells us that either of these bids - both the Aquasure bid, which is the bid the Government has accepted, as well as the Bass Water bid - were well below the public sector comparator. So that’s the guarantee that the public is getting value for money from the involvement of the private sector in the delivery of this project. ... There will be new renewable energy projects generated as a consequence of the ...

JON FAINE: Where?

TIM HOLDING: Well, of the – the consortium will make that clear through the purchase of their renewable energy.

JON FAINE: So you don’t know? You can't tell us?

TIM HOLDING: Well it will become clearer over time. They will also be purchasing renewable energy credits as part of the process. And that’s the public's guarantee that the power that’s used, the energy that’s used to power this plant has been offset by the purchase of not just renewable energy, but renewable energy in addition to the targets that the Government had already set.

JON FAINE: Can you guarantee that consumers' water bills will only increase by the stated 100 per cent over five years?

TIM HOLDING: We’ve said that over the next price period, bills will double, but not more than double. We reiterate and reaffirm that guarantee. The Essential Services Commission has reaffirmed that. In fact, the price increase will be a little bit less than that. And as I mentioned earlier by reference to the public sector comparator, that both bids came in below the public sector comparator, and that’s a guarantee also that the price impact of this project will not only be less than the full doubling of water prices, but in fact will be less than if the Government had been forced to deliver this project ourselves.

------------------------------

TAMARA OUDYN, PRESENTER: Tony Shepherd is the chairman of the consortium chosen to build the desalination plant. I spoke with him earlier.

Tony Shepherd, welcome to the program.

TONY SHEPHERD, CHAIRMAN, AQUASURE: Hi, Tamara. Nice to see you.

TAMARA OUDYN: How many desalination plants has your company been responsible for and why is this one different?

TONY SHEPHERD: The technology provided to our consortium is Degremont, a French company. Degremont has provided hundreds of desalination plants throughout the world. In fact I think it's the world's leading provider of desalination plants. They’ve done the plant recently in Perth, which is operating and operating very successfully. The difference in this one: I guess it's a modern plant, state-of-the-art, the design and integration into the local environment is different. And the fact that we have to build such a large plant in a very short time is also different.

TAMARA OUDYN: Finance has obviously been a key issue. Whose idea was it for the Government the lender of last resort?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well obviously with the GFC, raising all of this debt and equity was an issue for us. Having raised all of the debt, the banks were concerned about that part of the debt that they wished to syndicate, and we took that to the Government as a suggestion and the Government adopted it. We think it’s a smart way of getting around the issue. But we’re confident that the banks will in fact be able to syndicate that debt.

TAMARA OUDYN: It’s $4 billion worth. Is it true that you plan to offload most of that?

TONY SHEPHERD: No; I think it’s about $1.7 billion that has to be syndicated of that four.

TAMARA OUDYN: So when would you need to finalise your financial arrangements?

TONY SHEPHERD: By financial close, which is in about two months’ time.

TAMARA OUDYN: The price of the project is now being put at $3.5 billion. Will that be the total cost?

TONY SHEPHERD: That's the total cost of the construction of the plant. On top of that, we’ll have things like interest during construction and company costs.

TAMARA OUDYN: So what other sorts of costs are associated with completing the project that aren’t included in that figure?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well mainly interest during construction.

TAMARA OUDYN: And how much would you expect that to ... ?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well I think the total funding will be $4.8 billion, so the difference between the $3.5 and the $4.8 is associated with the financing of the project.

TAMARA OUDYN: Over and above the cost of building the project and getting it up and running, how much will it cost to run each year?

TONY SHEPHERD: I haven’t got the exact number at my fingertips, but it’s into the hundreds of millions a year, including the cost of power.

TAMARA OUDYN: You’ve struck a deal that allows the Government to order as much or as little water as it needs. How do you make a profit in that circumstance?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well, we get paid for having the capacity available. And obviously we get paid for actually producing the water. So, the Government has the flexibility as to how much water they want us to produce, but obviously we have to service our capital in the meantime and keep the plant in good operating condition and we get compensated for that.

TAMARA OUDYN: Are you free to take orders from other customers?

TONY SHEPHERD: No, no we’re not. We can only supply the Victorian Government.

TAMARA OUDYN: So how will you make a profit if we have a big downpour in Victoria and we’re set for water?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well, we certainly take some risks on that. But if you look at the state of the dams at the present time, at less than 30 per cent capacity, it’s highly unlikely that this desalination plant will not be running in a maximum condition for quite a while, in my view.

TAMARA OUDYN: Roughly how much will a megalitre of water cost?

TONY SHEPHERD: We can’t disclose that as yet. This will be disclosed after financial close, when our contract is published.

TAMARA OUDYN: Why can't you disclose that?

TONY SHEPHERD: Because the Government has asked us not to until the contract is disclosed to the public. The price is not exactly finalised until we reach financial close. There could be some slight variations in the meantime.

TAMARA OUDYN: And what’s the price dependent on?

TONY SHEPHERD: The things that might vary in the meantime is the rate of interest and things like that that might vary over this period of time, but relatively minor. We’re talking marginal changes. But the Government prefers to release the details of the contract in one go after financial close, and I think that’s sensible.

TAMARA OUDYN: It’s been reported that the desal plant will produce more than one million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. Is that irrespective of how the power to run it is generated?

TONY SHEPHERD: That is a hypothetical figure that you’re discussing.

TAMARA OUDYN: More than one million tonnes?

TONY SHEPHERD: Yes, that’s just purely hypothetical. Because the energy that we use – the main energy we use in the plant to produce desalinated water is renewable energy, which, by definition, doesn’t produce carbon. I disagree with the number, yeah.

TAMARA OUDYN: So you can't tell me what the projected emissions would be because ... ?

TONY SHEPHERD: We will be carbon neutral. The plant will be carbon neutral.

TAMARA OUDYN: So what’s your time frame; when do you think you’ll be turning the taps on?

TONY SHEPHERD: December of 2011 is the target, is our contractual commitment, so, that’s a very tight schedule for a plant of this size.

TAMARA OUDYN: And will you be operating at capacity by that stage? Or will it be a gradual run-up to ... ?

TONY SHEPHERD: We’ll be getting close to capacity then.

TAMARA OUDYN: So when do you think you’ll hit capacity?

TONY SHEPHERD: We’re hoping to get it by then.

TAMARA OUDYN: Tony Shepherd, thanks for joining us.

TONY SHEPHERD: Thank you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victorians need evidence they’ll be desal winners - "The Age July 31, 2009"

THE deal is done. Premier John Brumby has announced that AquaSure, an international consortium consisting of Suez Environment, Degremont, Thiess and Macquarie Capital Group, will build Australia’s biggest desalination plant. The decision on the $3.5 billion project — $400 million more than the $3.1 billion price tag that the Government has long quoted — has put paid to suspicions that another French-led consortium might be in line for the contract to make up for Connex parent company Veolia and its potential merger partner, Yarra Trams parent company Transdev, losing their public transport contracts.

The project remains contentious in other ways, not least among local residents fearful of its impact on their environment. The higher cost only increases pressure on the Government to provide solid evidence for why it preferred the costly and environmentally dubious option of desalination — which it scorned before the 2006 election — over water recycling and stormwater capture.

The Government has been reluctant to release the public sector comparator of the costs of desalination and the greener alternatives. One suspects recycling costings have been inflated by provision for third-pipe infrastructure to keep a politically motivated promise not to use recycled water for drinking — an internationally tried and tested solution that really should be the basis for comparison. Instead, most of Melbourne’s treated waste water will still be pumped out to sea — a waste of roughly 200 billion litres a year.

Of course, the Government is talking up the project’s benefits, including jobs. An underground power supply allays one concern about impacts on the landscape and landowners. On the face of it, the commitment to use renewable energy is welcome, given justifiable community concern about the wisdom of using a power-hungry, greenhouse-gas-producing plant to make up for the scarcity of water in an environment of climate change. Water Minister Tim Holding said Aquasure would build, with AGL, a 63-megawatt wind farm near Glenthompson. However, this falls short of the power required to produce 150 billion litres of water a year and pump it 86 kilometres. Government documents predict an ‘‘average electricity requirement of approximately 92 megawatts’’. At best, actual output of wind power is about 40 per cent of installed capacity, so the wind farm will supply barely a quarter of the electricity required. Victorians must take at face value assurances that the shortfall can be met from other green energy sources. The contract must ensure an equivalent increase in the grid’s renewable generating capacity for the plan to be carbon-neutral.

The other issue is the huge cost. Mr Holding said that by 2013 Victorians’ average water bills would be held to less than double their current level — largely to pay for this project. Both Mr Brumby and Mr Holding insisted the contract would deliver value for money. It would provide for flexibility to produce water in increments of between 0 and 100 per cent of the plant’s capacity, supplying the system only when needed. This provision is qualified, though, by the minister’s recent decision to advise water authorities that the plant would run at full capacity in any of the next five financial years, as long as dams are below 65 per cent at the end of the preceding March — the month when levels are usually lowest.

Victorians are not yet privy to the details of payment arrangements, but no business is likely to agree to its income drying up in a wet year. That is not the only concern for taxpayers. Mr Holding said: ‘‘The capacity of AquaSure to raise the necessary funds in such a tough global economic environment is a testament to the strong Victorian economy,’’ and then, somewhat contradictorily, added: ‘‘AquaSure will now seek to diversify its investor base, with the Victorian Government providing a Treasurer’s guarantee of syndication. This means the state will be a lender of last resort if required, at commercial rates.’’ How much could taxpayers be up for, and on what terms?

Lack of transparency goes to the heart of the difficulty of simply accepting that this and other public-private partnerships offer value for money. Labor has failed to keep its 1999 election promise, prompted by Kennett government secrecy, that commercial-in-confidence provisions would apply only to patents and trade secrets. The Labor-dominated public accounts and estimates committee has concluded that the score of PPPs entered into by this Government ‘‘diminished the accountability of government for substantial state expenditure’’, to the point that Victorians could have no idea whether these projects offered value for money. The bottom line is simple: if the contract truly represents a good deal, it should be good enough to stand up to public scrutiny.

---------------------------

ABC Online - Failed desal bidder to get compensation

Updated Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:54pm AEST
Bidders for the tender to construct the Wonthaggi desalination plant have until the end of the month

Victoria's Water Minister says without a desalination plant the state could run out of water. (ABC TV)

The failed bidder for Victoria's desalination plant will receive compensation from the state government.

BassWater lost out to a consortium called AquaSure in the tendering process to build and operate the $3.5 billion plant near Wonthaggi in South Gippsland

Victorian Water Minister, Tim Holding, says it is appropriate for BassWater to receive up to $10 million compensation.

"You can't compensate the private sector for all of those costs, but you can recognise that sometimes the projects are so large and the bid proposals that we seek are so complicated that it is appropriate to make a modest contribution," he said.

Earlier, Mr Holding, strongly defended the desalination project on ABC 774's Morning Program.

"Without this project we would not have a non-rainfall dependant source of water, which is exactly what we need in an environment of drought and climate change," he said.

Opposition leader Ted Baillieu told the program that Victorians were now "stuck" with a desalination plant and he voiced concern about the fine detail of the contract.

"The details of these contractual arrangements have to be released in full," he said.

AquaSure's Chairman, Tony Shepherd, says the consortium is ready to start work next month.

"We are quietly confident that we'll be able to raise the money," he said.

Meanwhile, the Bass Coast Shire says it will maintain pressure to ensure the local community is not disadvantaged by the project.

Shire mayor, John Duscher, says the council will continue to advocate for ratepayers.

"We will do everything in our power to lessen the impact on our community and maximise any benefits to our community," he said.

The desalination plant is expected to produce about 150 billion litres of drinking water a year and is due to begin operations at the end of 2011.

AquaSure has promised to build a windfarm at Glenthompson, in the state's south-west, to offset the desalination plant's energy needs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Parts of cartoon based on one signed "V.D." which is all over the net, but no attributions available.)

Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution’ (GAIC)

From Beveridge in the north, Werribee and Melton in the west, to Cranbourne in the south-east, thousands of Victorians have recently been notified of the Victorian Labor Government’s intention to introduce what they are calling a ‘Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution’ (GAIC) for selected areas around Melbourne.

What kind of government just dreams up new taxes of $95,000?

In effect, this ‘contribution’ is a $95,000 per hectare tax on all vacant properties over one acre, and all properties over five acres with homes when you sell, regardless of the sale price.

Imagine the young couple who are struggling to pay the mortgage on a small property of six acres where they have built, or hope to build their dream home and raise a family. One of them loses their job due to the current economic climate and they decide they can no longer afford their dream. What chance would they have of raising enough from the sale of their land in a depressed market to cover what they owe the bank, plus over $230,000 for the Labor Government’s share?

Imagine the farmer who has put his blood, sweat and tears into life on the land and is coming to the end of his working life. His plans have always been, to sell his 100 acre farm. He’s struggled through years of drought to make ends meet and now, out of the blue, he has to pay the government over $3.8 million for the privilege of selling his property.

In the likely event that he doesn’t sell, Mr. Brumby and Mr. Madden will simply pass the $3.8 million debt (indexed annually) on to his children or widow when he dies. Whatever you do, Mr. Farmer, don’t get divorced and sell your property as part of the settlement, as they’ll take it from you then!

Who will stop this dictatorship?

When Victorians elected the Labor Government did we give them a mandate to simply take a large portion of our great Australian dream - a home which we have worked hard to get? We need to tell them, NOW, that we will not stand for a government that believes it has a right to introduce legislation such as this. The theft of privately owned property by force is something that we expect to hear of happening in communist or fascist countries, not in the lucky country, our country, Australia!

If you believe that it is unfair for Mr. Brumby’s duly elected State Labor Government to take a large portion of our homes in this manner please let them know that it will be political suicide for them to proceed with this legislation. Remember there’s an election next year! Today, email them, fax them or even just mail this page to them with a note voicing your disapproval at them stealing our homes by stealth.

Your home could be in the next lot that they steal, so tell them now, that it’s not acceptable!

John Brumby - Premier
Level 1, 1 Treasury Place, East Melbourne Vic., 3002.
Ph: 9651 5000 Fax: 9651 5054
[email protected]

Justin Madden - Minister for Planning
Level 17, 8 Nicholson Street, Melbourne Vic., 3000.
Ph: 9637 8087 Fax: 9637 8921
[email protected]

Source of article was Michael Hocking, Taxed Out Inc., PO Box 113 Beveridge, 3753. Backhouse & Thomas 3869TO

Recall defective Planning Bill

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc has called for the withdrawal of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Bill 2009.

Brian Walters SC, President of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. said: “This Bill is an affront to democracy as well as to good planning. It will inevitably lead to damage to the environment and public assets. It is an irresponsible measure and suggests that its proponents are in league with developers instead of upholding the community’s interests.”

Under the provisions of the Bill, the Planning Minister (in consultation with the Premier) can recommend that a project be a “declared project”. Then the project is fast-tracked without any of the normal safeguards the community has a right to expect.

Community's rights removed

The community will have no right of objection, and comment by the public is only to be permitted at the whim of the Planning Minister – and then only in exceptional circumstances, and with only 15 days’ notice. To expect community organisations to provide proper comment on major projects with only 15 days to master the material and assess it – and if necessary obtain expert advice - is ludicrous. These provisions provide for a sham right of consultation which is effectively impossible to exercise. The real goal is to remove public comment altogether, but the Bill lacks the integrity to say so.

Without public comment, projects that do not serve the interests of the community will be rammed through without a full assessment of their impact.

Ministers will not have time to assess the projects

Even when comments are offered, the Minister has only 15 days to assess them, so only the most cursory examination of the merits of a project is anticipated. For most decisions under the Bill, appeals to VCAT or judicial review are expressly excluded. Where judicial review is allowed (only for the final decision to approve a project), the Bill allows just 21 days to commence proceedings once a decision is published in the Government Gazette.

Bill heavily biased in favour of developers and varies Constitution Act

In its haste to limit rights, the Bill goes so far as to vary the Constitution Act. All consideration is given to “project proponents” and none to the community.

Labour legislating for millionaire mates

Mr Walters said: “We hope the government sees sense and withdraws the Bill. If it does not, we hope the Parliament will reject it. The fast tracking of major projects for developers, at the expense of the community and good planning, appears to be legislation for millionaire mates rather than for the good government of the people of Victoria.”

Contact via this website:
Brian Walters SC President Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

These are dark times for Australia and Victoria is one of the darkest places in the country for democracy. There are, however still some good people in parliament and we must support their efforts. The Greens and the Opposition need the electorate's help to have this bill stopped in the upper house. They have done it before, so they can do it again. See for example, "Coalition, Greens & DLP vote Tim Holding's North South Pipeline enabling regulations down!".

If passed, the new proposed Major Transport Projects Facilitiation Bill 2009, will create an Act of Law tol override existing planning and environmental approval processes under the 11 other Acts listed below. Like the Repco rally law in NSW it will overturn laws for the protection of democracy, the environment, and the public.

This Bill is bad because:

- It will exempt the State Government from its own laws and concentrate decision making power into one or two Ministers, raising the risk of corruption and 'influence peddling'.

- You will not be able to appeal to the Supreme court except to appeal the final decison by the Planning Minister, but the law will be biased against the appeal because they will have to favour "cost and efficiency" of the project rather than environment, heritage, or democratic agreement by the community.

This bill is bad for democracy and is not needed or wanted - except by big business and developers.

Greg Barber of the Greens has asked, "What public transport projects have ever been delayed by following proper processes?"

Labor is determined to ram this through.

He says, "Labor is determined to ram this through. Only the Liberal-National Coalition, by voting with the Greens, can stop this bill in the upper house. You are urged to email Liberal, National, DLP Upper House MPs and tell them that if they really care about stopping corruption they will vote to make state government decisions subject to the law."

Copy of the legislation and explanatory info
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/eb658cee32cafe23ca2576100014d381!OpenDocument

Coastal Management Act 1995
Consent under section 40(1)
Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987
Comment under section 66
Environment Protection Act 1970
Works approval under section 19B(7)
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
Permit under section 40
Licence under section 53 to take and keep fish
Forests Act 1958
Licence or permit under section 52
Permit under section 59(1)
Authority under section 77
Heritage Act 1995
Permit under section 74
Permit under section 113
Consent under section 129
National Parks Act 1975
Permit under section 21(1)(a)
Approval under section 23
Consent under section 25
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Preparation, approval and adoption of a planning scheme or an amendment to
a planning scheme under sections 8, 29 and 35
Granting and issue of a planning permit under section 61
Road Management Act 2004
Consent under clause 1 of Schedule 2
Decision under clause 2 of Schedule 2
Consent under clause 16 of Schedule 7
Water Act 1989
Licence under section 51
Licence under section 67
Wildlife Act 1975
Authority under section 21(1), (2) or (3)
Licence under section 22(1)
Authorisation under section 28A

Partial source for this article was

Leadbeater’s Possum – Victoria’s endangered State Faunal Emblem.

The following article is based on an urgent communication from Friends of Leadbeater's Possum.

Leadbeater’s Possum (LBP) Quick Facts:

- Approx 43% of the Leadbeater's Possum Permanent Reserve System (30,000ha) was burnt in the 2009 fires.
- It is estimated remaining populations are around just 1,000 individuals in the wild.
- There are no Leadbeater's Possum in captivity in Australia, and there is no captive breeding program planned
to help increase their population.
- Massive scale salvage logging and new timber harvesting coupes in areas of un?burnt water catchments are compounding the effects of the bushfires by removing all LBP habitat elements for the next few hundred years!

What can you do to help LBPs this Threatened Species Day???
On September 7th please make the effort to contact Premier Brumby and let him know you are not happy with the way his government is treating our forests and that you want more to be done to protect these forests for threatened species like Leadbeater’s Possum.

- Demand a full scale review of our forest estate

- Demand a full scale review of our forest estate – before any more logging coupes or salvage logging coupes are approved.

We need to ensure our State Government is managing our forests for threatened species, biodiversity & ecological values,
carbon storage, water catchments and air quality – for all Australians, not just those benefiting from our destructive
timber harvesting industry.

- Demand an end to all logging in water catchments. Water scarcity is an increasingly alarming issue, and rather than building destructive pipelines and energy intensive desalination plants, Victoria should be protecting the water catchments
that have provided us with some of the best drinking water in the world!

- Demand more resources be spent on threatened species management, including broad scale monitoring programs, habitat enhancement measures & community engagement.

To Contact Premier John Brumby:
www.premier.vic.gov.au, Twitter: ‘vicpremier’
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/JohnBrumbyMP

For more about saving the little Leadbeater's Possum contact
Friends of the Leadbeater's Possum
Email Friends of Leadbeater's Possum
PO Box 1175
Healesville VIC 3777
[email protected]
www.leadbeaters.org.au

Today is a dark day for native vegetation and the environment

Website - http://livingwiththebush.org/dp/
Today (Thursday 3rd Sept) Brumby bulldozed amendments to the Dandenong Ranges and Yarra Valley Regional Strategy Plan.

This was pushed through both houses of parliament with less than one days notice so the Government can soon remove vegetation protection to allow:
- clearing of all trees and vegetation within 10m of a house
- clearing a 4m wide strip of all vegetation along each property boundary
- clearing any vegetation except trees between 10m and 30m from a house;

from all of Victoria except the 20 urban councils around Melbourne proper.

Devastating impact

This will have a devastating impact in many areas of Victoria where many communities live with in a bushland setting.

And the evidence is that doing this will not make us safe from bushfire.
There are examples from Black Saturday of houses without any nearby vegetation that burnt, of fires that raced through short grass fields to ignite buildings. Houses located more than 380 metres from continous bush were lost.

Vegetation can also act as an essential windbreak, reducing the wind that intensifies fires, and may provide protection from radiant heat as well as slowing down or stopping embers.

Yet the Brumby government intends to allow this clearing until the final recommendations of the Bushfire Commission are released next year.

This will encourage unneighbourly behaviour

By then everyone who has been endeavouring to clear their block for any reason, including gaining a better view will have done so. We will have lost forever even more of our biodiversity and dumped more green house gases into the atmosphere.

The Living With The Bush Coalition has been formed to campaign against this proposal. We believe that this unfettered clearing is fundamentally flawed in that it will not protect houses from bushfires, may in fact increase the danger by creating more intense fires and will destroy the reason so many of us live with the bush.

Read our charter, "Living with the Bush"

You can read our charter at as well as more information on this issue, why we have reached this position and what you can do.

If you support the views expressed in the charter please consider endorsing it, either individually or as on behalf of a group.

You can register your support at the website.

With a large community outcry I hope we can get these unilateral changes modified to something that will protect our lives instead of just removing trees.

Please forward this on to your networks to help build the Living with the Bush Coalition,

best regards
Louis Delacretaz
0407 300 188

Mr RYAN (Leader of The Nationals),speaking in Parliament on 11 June 2009, said, "Yesterday, together with the member for Bass and other members of Parliament from the conservative side of politics, I was on the front steps of Parliament House when yet another rally was conducted by Victorians who came to the Parliament to complain about the excesses of the Brumby government.

The organisations involved in yesterday’s rally [10 June 2009] were the Coalition of Concerned Councillors, an organisation called Planning Backlash, and another organisation called Watershed Victoria. I was presented with about 3000 letters in relation to issues to do with the desalination plant. Part of one letter reads as follows:

I am dismayed by Mr Brumby’s intention to build the largest, climate-change-accelerating desalination plant in the southern hemisphere on the pristine Bass Coast. There is no mandate. It is a total about-face to ALP re-election Water Policy of ‘recycling and conservation, that will secure Melbourne’s water supply’

… Desalination uses enormous energy, and is enormously expensive. The Brumby government has spent millions of tax payers dollars attempting to deliberately distort and mislead the community into accepting this disastrous project without openly and transparently evaluating sustainable and superior water alternatives …"

I have undertaken to provide these letters to the Premier, and I will. The people of Victoria are sick of the taint of corruption, issues to do with financial management, taxation, matters to do with the destruction of people’s rights — all things this government campaigned on and is now ignoring.

Source: Victorian Hansard June 11, 2009

First day back Vic Parliament greeted by disgusted protesters

Over 200 people gathered for a rousing, energetic pro -democracy rally on the steps of Parliament House in Spring St. Melbourne the first day of sitting for the Victorian parliament,Tuesday Feb 3rd.The rally was led by Victorian Water Forum (Plug The Pipeline, Water Shed Victoria and The Clean Ocean Foundation)

Public anger in Victoria

The over- all visual thrust of the rally was public anger over water and transport mismanagement in Victoria under the Brumby Government.

Most participants were supporting "Plug the Pipeline" or the Wonthaggi anti -desalination group, Water Shed Victoria. Others held up anti road tunnel placards.

Speakers ranged from farmers from the north side of the "Divide" whose water is being piped to Melbourne, community group leaders of the Wonthaggi area whose residents are the unwilling hosts of a proposed massive desalination plant, to politicians and local Melbourne community group leaders.

Stand out speakers

Stand out speakers were: Steve Canon from Watershed Victoria, Peter Ryan (MLA Leader of the National Party in the Victorian government,) Greg Barber (MLC The Greens Spokesperson for Environment,Finance and Indigenous Affairs in the Victorian Government) and possibly the most memorable, "Anton" from the Clean Ocean Foundation whose last name escaped me, a surfer from the Wonthaggi area spoke brilliantly, logically and directly of the historical ineptitude of government as regards water management in Victoria .

Anger at loss of democracy in vital decisions affecting Victorians' lives

The common thread through the entire rally and all speakers was anger and disgust over the lack of consultation of the Brumby government in vital matters affecting people's lives , and the loss of democracy in Victoria. One of the speakers railed against the seeming deliberate strategy of government to divide the populace e.g pitting city residents against country residents as water is stolen from the north to assuage the thirst of the city and a peaceful country seaside area is spoilt to manufacture water for the same city's (endlessly increasing) needs

Solidarity despite Gov policy of divide and conquer

The spirit of the rally was however one of solidarity with people unanimous in advocating water re-cycling and harvesting at local level instead of desalination on a pristine beach and taking water from a food producing area to supply city residents as well as in their in their support for public transport vs. road building for more cars.

Julianne Bell on Bass Desalination and Sugarloaf Interconnector Pipe

Julianne Bell speaking for Protectors of Public Lands pointed out to my mind the most blatant concrete example of the Victorian Government's scorning of consultation and democracy where government approved the Desalination Plant on the Bass Coast and the Sugarloaf Interconnector Pipeline before the Parliament committee on the environment and natural resources enquiring into Melbourne's Future Water was complete.(!)

In her own words -

"Yesterday Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and one of our member groups the Royal Park Protection Group Inc. addressed the Parliament Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources which is enquiring into Melbourne's Future Water Supply. Unfortunately Government had already approved the Desalination Plant on the Bass Coast and the Sugarloaf Interconnector Pipeline before the enquiry was complete. (The Committee is only just completing its hearings of witnesses - yesterday was the last day.) PPL VIC and RPPG told the Committee that Melbourne could secure its own water resources without robbing regional Victoria. Out submissions were on firstly - the need to stop logging water catchment areas. This could provide a supply of water to service 600,000 households in Melbourne. The other RPPG submission was on the need for local urban water sourcing projects - wetlands which recycle storm water, harvesting storm water off the roofs of large buildings as is being done at the SNHC in Royal Park and the use of storm water. We suggested that local Councils be funded to under development and manage projects."

Post script - People silenced on the root-cause of loss of democracy and quality of life

The massive population growth which has brought about the need for all these impositions was not mentioned by any speakers. My feeling is that raising this topic would have unnerved a very united group and the person introducing it would have been punished. I surmise that to most of those gathered ,the enemy was clearly Mr Brumby and his team. If population growth had been brought up it would have led to confusion as the group would not have seen Mr Brumby as being so clearly responsible.

Channel 2 fails its duty to report event to the public

This event was not reported on the channel 2 news the same night.

What are State of the Environment (SoE) reports?

State of the Environment reports (SoE) www.ces.vic.gov.au/CES/... are made on two levels: state and national. The National Reports are made on the following themes: Atmosphere, Biodiversity, Coasts and oceans, Human settlements, Inland waters, Land, Natural and cultural heritage, Australian Antarctic Territory.

The last published State of the Environment Australia Report was in 2006.

Most Australian states have prepared full SoE reports since the early 1990s, but Victoria has only just published her first, in 2008. Any previous reports were minor and had little or no comparability with the standard and methods that full SoE reports are expected to have.
Unfortunately, this report has a very poor standard. It isn't really a report; it is a policy document, which cites other reports, second or third hand ones.

Legal status

Since 1999, Australian Government legislation mandates the preparation and tabling of the national state of the environment report in Parliament through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (section 516B)

1. The Minister must cause a report on the environment in the Australian jurisdiction to be prepared in accordance with the regulations (if any) every 5 years. The first report must be prepared by 31 December 2001.
2. The report must deal with the matters prescribed by the regulations.
3. The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report.

States and territories

[This para newly inserted on 10 December 2008] These reports are not made under the same legislation as the Commonwealth SoE Reports and their comparability is moot. Under the Australian Constitution the States have control over many aspects of the Environment, particularly with regard to land and water. It is not clear what, if anything, might be done where Commonwealth and State Reports and recommendations contradict each other.

Most State and Territory governments prepare state of the environment reports on a regular basis, and it is a legislative requirement in New South Wales, ACT, Tasmania, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. In New South Wales local governments are legislated to prepare regular SoE reports.

The first ever real Victorian State of the Environment Report (2008) is finally out.

The dead give-away that this isn't a serious ecological report is that it treats us as 'consumers' instead of citizens. [Citizens contribute fully to their country; consumers just hand over cash and go away and shut up].

It contains informed statements which make Victorian economic growth policies look stupid and dangerous to public safety. Unfortunately this report, pretending to be critical, sets objectives which often look as if they would be impossible to coordinate (although some might be achieved briefly through combinations of strong propaganda and force) and which are mutually contradictory. This was probably the result of having a committee which could not really reach agreement between scientific reality and economic ideology, so what we get is a cognitively dissonant mix. My heart goes out to the sincere participants in this compilation.

Most of those whose backgrounds have been made available to the public in the document (you have to click the links) are economics, business or management. Trish Caswell used to be the ACF President, and when she was, she was very vigilant to ensure that population policy was kept off the agenda. I would call her an industrial relations person. There is a dairy irrigator, a council CEO. A primary industry veteran. These people are billed as having knowledge of sustainability, but, most would not have scientific knowledge of ecological systems. I think we are again victim to the Victorian government's idea that 'sustainability' is an economic concept. Can this really pass muster under the EPBC Act? It doesn't have to.

You can read the credentials of the reference group here.

Co-Chairs: Dan Atkins,Kate Vinot,
Members: Alex Arbuthnot, Cheryl Batagol, Dr Sarah Bekessy, Patricia Caswell, Catherine Dale, Russell Higgins, Gillian Sparkes, Mick Murphy, Terry Walshe, Rob Gell, Kelly O'Shannassy

Sarah Beckersley is the only one who inspires confidence in me as an ecologically educated person, however there are three in the unhighlighted list who I don't know.

It is actually pretty amazing that a committee with such obvious business bias and apparently poor aggregate biophysical science background has been allowed to put forth such a report. The report is full of cliches and lacks the profound knowledge of the 2001 State of the Environment Report. We can see why.

The Report, such as it is:

The trick is to go to the end first, but I'll start at the beginning here.

A good beginning:

The Victorian State of the Environment Report 2008 says that:

The future cannot be an extension of the past

Australia’s total material requirements are increasing and are more than twice that of other OECD countries.

Victoria's population growth is a major driver of environmental degradation.

Population growth, settlement and consumption patterns, and climate change are the key drivers of environmental degradation in Victoria.

"Population growth and settlements Victoria’s population growth, increasing affluence and the expansion of our cities and towns, have contributed to unsustainable levels of resource consumption and waste production. This has direct environmental impacts through changes in land use, from conservation and agriculture to cities and towns. To supply our cities and towns, we harvest water for residential and manufacturing purposes, change river flows, discharge wastes to land and sea, remove native vegetation and send damaging gases into the atmosphere."

"Lifestyle factors, such as the demand for larger homes and the rising cost of city living, are increasing the demand for development on Melbourne’s edges. These areas are poorly serviced by public transport due to low urban density and a focus on motor vehicle dominated urban design rather than transport systems which have the least environment impact, and which reduce our vulnerability to future economic shocks."

"Changing social patterns have led to a reduction in the number of people per household. At the same time there has been an increase in the size of houses which are often poorly designed for the local climate with low thermal and water efficiencies.These trends, combined with a growing population means we need more houses than ever before. This drives demand for household furniture and appliances, as well as heating and cooling and has led to an increase in the consumption of raw materials, water and energy."

"Victoria is largely banking on carbon capture and storage to deliver major reductions in our State’s emissions. Reliance on a technology that may not be ready until 2030 or later risks emissions continuing to rise for some time."

"Business as usual isn’t going to work."

"We must take strong action, not just make further aspirational policy commitments."

Yes, they must - only, unfortunately, they don't.

"The last assessment of river health in 2004 found that only one fifth of major rivers and tributaries in Victoria were in good or excellent condition. In 2008 nine out of ten Victorian basins in the Murray Darling Basin were found to be very poor health."

"The plants and animals which depend on our inland waters also indicate the health of rivers and wetlands."

"Unfortunately the news is not good. 21 fish species, 11 frog species and 29 species of waterbirds are threatened, and only 14% of riverside vegetation along major rivers and streams in Victoria was found to be in good condition, with most being patchy and interspersed with weeds."

"Wetlands are also very important for environmental health, but no statewide study of the extent of our wetlands has been undertaken since 1994.At that time, more than a third of our naturally occurring wetland area had already been lost and over 90% of the wetlands on private land had vanished – often drained for agriculture or housing developments. In August 2008, groundwater levels in half of the most highly developed or potentially stressed groundwater areas were the lowest on record."

"Water management in Victoria is rapidly increasing in sophistication and accountability, and Victoria is recognised for its leadership in water management."

That remark about leadership in water management and others about Victoria's Water Our Future are a dead giveaway that the Vic Government had influenced the report, if only in the language - you can tell by the empty cliches. In fact, one of the 'reference group' is Cheryl Batagol, currently the Chair of Melbourne Water.

(Personally I don't recognise Victoria as a leader in water management; I think it's a leader in water propaganda. PlugThePipe and PipeRightInc and FairWaterUse would agree, I think.)

"However, the degraded state of many of our rivers shows that the way we manage our water resources has not secured the health of our inland waters."

"Millions of dollars are being spent on efficiency and securing supply, but the impact of climate change means that water allocated to the environment may not be enough to secure environmental health. Sharing water between competing uses ultimately involves social and therefore political choices. To date, the environment has been the loser. Difficult decisions must be made as water availability declines and pressures on our environment increase. Many inland waters are in poor condition and in the context of ongoing drought and climate change, their future health is uncertain."

But these ...um... policy-writers are prepared to keep on growing our population and infrastructure! Have they no shame???

"Victoria is Australia’s most cleared and most densely populated State. More than half of our land has already been cleared and we are continuing to lose native vegetation at a rate of some 4,000 ha per year, mostly from endangered grasslands. Our State has the highest proportion (48%) of sub-bioregions in Australia in poor condition, with four out of Australia’s five most cleared bioregions found in western Victoria."

"Land clearing for cities, towns and farmland has contributed to a biodiversity crisis in Victoria. Most of our high quality native vegetation is found on Victoria’s public land in National and State parks and forests."

"Native vegetation remnants on private land are often small, patchy, isolated and degraded by human activities."

The next two paragraphs are really important, but, read through the report... and you cannot imagine the lot in charge of Victoria ever doing anything for flora and fauna except packaging it up for food until it is extinct. Effective laws would prevent that.

"Laws and policies for managing our natural environment have been developed over many years but need to be reformed. Victoria is committed to a joined-up approach to catchment, land and biodiversity management. Current management arrangements are complex and involve all levels of government, as well as public and private land managers. This has resulted in an extensive and complex range of regulations and legal requirements for land managers, and variable compliance and enforcement."

"Reform is needed to simplify environmental legislation and to align the environmental objectives of all levels of government to drive improvements in environmental condition.
The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 is failing to meet its stated objectives and needs to be reviewed to address Victoria’s natural environments and their vulnerabilities to climate change. It also needs an adequate long-term allocation of resources to ensure effective achievement of its objectives."

BUT... The report wusses out. It almost says we cannot go on increasing our population but it doesn't. This means, to my well-honed senses for bull-dust and bowing to pressure, that the Victorian population is about to be subjected to severe price rises and subjugation in order to allow continued population growth, and so as to protect the elites from an impact on their profits as much as possible.

I predict that this report will be used to ram through new planning policies which will totally remove Victorians' ability to affect how development proceeds. It will be used to remove most of our rights to control our local environments. It is appalling that Victoria, having finally produced a 'state of the environment report' seems to have sunk to a point of exploiting the opportunity for the aims of some ego-bound, terribly rich developers and their planning and political friends who are trying to maintain profit in the face of world economic crash - and the hell with the rest of us.

"PART 5 Living well within our Environment Key findings • The wellbeing of Victorians is ultimately dependent upon the health of the natural environment. The ecosystem services upon which we depend have been, and under business-as-usual scenarios will continue to be, compromised."

BUT ... the main quality of business as usual in Victoria is "Growth" and the architects of this report won't even go near that one. In fact the section on growth of population and consumption is the only section with no recommendations. It contains a blank box for recommendations. How coy!

"• Social and economic systems are vulnerable; as a result, so is human wellbeing. Urgent and fundamental changes are needed and government must provide transparent, exemplary leadership."

Hard to see how the leadership of a government that persists in importing more and more people could ever be exemplary. This report is so 'sophisticated', it is hard to believe that the authors would recognise transparency.

"• Vulnerabilities are partly the inadvertent by-product of increasing efficiency, reducing the capacity of Victoria to adapt to looming sustainability challenges. Current vulnerabilities include the dependence on brown coal and petroleum and, globally, the ability to supply food under conditions of expected climate change and global population growth."

Actually, they do counsel the government to reconsider its food export ambitions, which is very ominous seeing as they refrain from counseling the government to reconsider its people importing ambitions.

"WR10 The Victorian Government should carefully consider its food and fibre export target of $12 billion in light of external economic factors, current knowledge regarding current and future water availability, river health implications, and potential to achieve higher levels of irrigated production through improved water use efficiency."

• Victorians have proven talented and innovative, and, with government support, they are well equipped to deal with the challenges of moving into a post-carbon economy. Victorian industries want strong leadership and certainty from government as they adapt to this future.

There it is again, that 'challenge' word. And the 'leadership and certainty' wanted from the government by industry... That's engineers and property developers lobby jargon. It means, "Make sure those 'customers' of yours tow the line, Mr Brumby."

• While it is essential to ensure that future development is within sustainable limits, Victorian society is unsustainable now. Refocusing on current patterns is necessary and possible through use of the term ecologically sustainable use (ESU). ESU is applied in this discussion to make the point that present uses affect the state of the environment as much as do growth and change.

Sounds so reasonable, doesn't it. If only the expectations of growth were not there and the subcurrent of awful coercion and absolute uncompromise, which gives away the insane agenda.

• ESU becomes a reality when decoupling (a separation between an indicator of wellbeing and an indicator of environmental pressure) is demonstrated. Relative decoupling has commenced in many sectors, but ESU will only be realised when absolute decoupling is achieved.

I.e. The 'consumers' will learn to be happy with less and we will be happy as long as there are more and more consumers, living with less and less. And, um... let's just drop that 'citizen' word forever, eh?

• Resilience is so fundamental to sustainability as to be almost invisible. Essential ecosystem services and liveability, valued by all Victorians, can only be maintained when resilience – the ability to adapt to system shocks – is re-established within ecological systems and in society.

The writer of the Summary did admit that he had not sought consensus. So what I hear here are the sane words of a biologically literate on the panel, coupled with the ideological demands of the economically ... um...sophisticated ... on the panel. The same cognitive dissonance clangs in the two statements below:

"• In the context of the scale of the challenge, environmental governance is disparate and inconsistent. The current nature of environmental challenges means that governance must become strategic and future-focused. The technique of strategic environmental assessment should be used to address the long-term and wider implications of planning and policy."

"Technology has a significant role to play in reducing environmental pressures. However, due to associated inherent risks such as the rebound effect and the paradox of efficiency, technology alone must not be seen as a ‘silver bullet’. The environment doesn’t care
how efficient our technologies are if overall pressures continue to increase."

Although it flags population growth as a major driver, and talks about the importance of biodiversity, as a long-suffering Victorian, I was looking out for any comments which accept continued population growth, increasing density as an environment saver as an excuse for growth... I was on the look-out for anything that sounds like the Engineering or housing lobby.

And I found it - right at the end:

"Growing together"... (uggh)

"Recommendations LW1 The Victorian Government develop and use a single robust and clearly defined vision of an environmentally sustainable Victoria, incorporating environmentally sustainable use of natural resources, and use this to develop an update to Growing Victoria Together."

These guys are incorrigible! Sounds like something out of Bananas in pyjamas.

"LW2 The Victorian Government should ensure that the value of ecosystem services is factored into economic decision-making, as water and climate are starting to become. Agencies should become as adept at valuing and accounting for ecosystem services as they are economic and social services."

"LW3 The Victorian Government develops Growing Victoria Together to monitor and report on holistic wellbeing using consistent, valid and statistically verified sustainability indicators that, as a set, comprehensively cover each of the environmental, social and economic values of importance to Victorians."

Yep. Unfortunately, your usual market hype. They hope to overwhelm us with cliches until we go into a trance and simply follow their orders quietly.

"LW5 When considering ecologically sustainable development, the Victorian Government should take into account the present and short-term (as well as longer term) impacts of the development process and use all available development opportunities to achieve reductions in absolute environmental pressures."

Okay, so, how are they going to do that without stopping population growth? One way: they raise prices for every vital resource so that they can make a lot more money out of a huge population of people paying most of their incomes for food, water, housing, heating and transport. Democracy will be cancelled, of course. But they will be taking care of that in the ... um... education section.

LW6 That decoupling of wellbeing from environmental pressures should be a major policy objective of the Victorian Government. Targeted policy, as well as public education programs, should be introduced to reduce the dependence of economic wellbeing on high consumption and its attributed environmental pressures.

"LW7 That the Victorian Government comprehensively integrates decoupling, its stages and importance, into all Victorian Government decision-making at the strategic level."

"LW8 That the Victorian Government, generally, employs better data collection, monitoring and reporting regimes, with a stress on long-term, consistent data sets."

"LW9 That the Victorian Government, wherever possible, prevent the perpetuation of shifting baselines, particularly in regard to natural systems for which the crossing of thresholds are known and would constitute ecosystem collapse."

"LW10 That the Victorian Government factors in likely compounding pressures such as the expected effects of climate change when setting targets for ecological restoration."

"LW12 The Victorian Government should develop and monitor indices of social resilience, measuring all its elements (for example, innovation, diversity, distributed systems and the ability to embrace change)".

Note the jargon: 'embrace change'; 'diversity'. Diversity, the way the government means it, is not an element of social resilience; it is an element of disconnecting networks so that populations are easier to manage, more passive, disempowered and quietly - they hope - dysfunctional.

LW21 That the Victorian Government continues to investigate and implement market-based instruments to achieve positive environmental outcomes using prices set to account for the full value of ecosystem services. Any interventions should be by way of budget allocation and not through the creation of market distortions."

So, you can see in these exerpts, sane interspersed with greedy and insane. The 'leadership' in this report is about a small self-identified elite who think of the rest of us as children - oh, pardon - 'customers', with very few rights to be cajoled and coerced to serve them.

This is ecological reporting on an intellectual par with management in "Are you being served?".

Now you know why the corporate press took it seriously - it's made to order for them and their mates.

The report is available as a collection of pdf documents directly or indirectly linked to from www.ces.vic.gov.au/CES/...

Some of the pdf components are: Part 1: Introduction (564MB), Part 2: Driving Forces (1.1MB), Summary (2.5MB).

Good reading and please send comments and article!

Editor's comment 10 December 2008: Changes were made to this document today to correct the date of the last State of the Environment Report Australia, from 2001 to 2006 and to make clearer the lack of relationship between the State and the Commonwealth reports. After the question, "Can this really pass muster under the EPBC Act?", the comment, "It doesn't have to," was also inserted.

It is as if the people who managed to get into Victoria's Parliament don't realise that the Electorate can read transcripts of everything they say and do. On 2 December bi-election neophyte, Ms Kairouz, feeds the Premier the questions and Brumby makes fools of all of us:

SOURCE: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/pdf/Assembly/Jul-Dec%202008/Assembly%20Jul-Dec%202008%20Daily%202%20December%202008.pdf
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Tuesday, 2 December 2008 ASSEMBLY PROOF 3

Picture: Mr Brumby & Ms Kairouz, who narrowly beat Les Twentyman (Independent) in a bi-election in June 2008]

Population: growth Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit)

- I refer to the government's commitment to making Victoria the best place to live, work and raise a family, and I ask: could the Premier inform the house of how the government is planning for Victoria's future, with Melbourne expected to reach a population of more than 5 million people by 2036?

Mr Brumby's rhetoric on Victoria's population predicament

Mr BRUMBY (Premier) - I thank the member for Kororoit for her question. As we all know, Melbourne is renowned for its livability and affordability. We are now in the midst of a population boom, which is the largest in the state's history. It is a population boom that is larger than the population growth of the postwar years and larger than the gold rush years of the 1850s.

By the way, just today - totally coincidentally - the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) released its June 2008 population growth figures. They show Victoria's growth over the last year at 1.8 per cent. The national growth rate was at 1.7 per cent.

Of course it is a huge contrast with the figures of some years ago. We recall the figures of the 1990s, when Victoria was losing population in vast numbers to other states.

This morning, with the Minister for Planning, I released Melbourne @ 5 million - a planning update that delivers on our commitment to prepare the longer term plans for Melbourne. The population data we released today in Victoria shows that Victoria will grow by
2.3 million people between now and 2036, with something like 1.8 million extra people expected to be living in Melbourne. The policy released today refines the key directions of Melbourne 2030 to ensure that we can accommodate an additional 600 000 dwellings in Melbourne over the next 20 years.

Because our population is ageing, because the baby boomers are ageing, the rate of new dwelling construction and approval will grow at a faster rate than the rate of population growth. Our record in terms of livability and affordability was confirmed again yesterday. The Real Estate Institute of Victoria survey of housing affordability showed again, I am proud to say it, that Victoria is the most affordable capital city on the eastern seaboard for those who are looking to buy a home.

That comes as no surprise when you consider the generous assistance packages that we have on offer to first home buyers in Victoria. It comes as no surprise when you think of the off-the-plan duty concessions we provide; and when you think of the pensioner stamp duty concessions, which are the most generous in Australia.

There are a number of features of Melbourne @ 5 million. Firstly, through Melbourne @ 5 million we move from a single node city to a multicentred city, so there will be central activity districts in Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston and Ringwood.

We will also be promoting very strongly three major employment corridors across Melbourne. We are also preparing a development strategy for the Werribee employment precinct to unlock employment in the west.

The second feature is the review of the city's urban growth boundary over the next nine months. That is to accommodate 134 000 of the 600 000 new homes outside the current UGB. Thirdly, there are the native grassland reserves, where we are working with the federal government to establish two reserves near the Wyndham growth area. This will be a significant improvement on the practices which have been in place in the past.

We are also ensuring that we have the right infrastructure for our communities, with significant investment occurring in the areas of health, education and, course soon to be announced, transport.

The previously announced state infrastructure contribution has been significantly reformed and modified as part of this announcement for new land brought inside the UGB as proposed today for inclusion in 2009. We will pay a contribution of $95 000 a hectare, reflecting the windfall that occurs from the rezoning of that land and bringing it in from the UGB; and secondly, for land that was bought within the UGB in 2005, that charge remains at $80 000 a hectare, the same as was announced at that time.

I am pleased to say in terms of housing affordability that the government has decided to remove the contribution for land that was already within the UGB in 2005, and that will save something like $546 million in costs for more than 60 000 new homes that will be built within the existing UGB boundary. At a time when affordability is so important, notwithstanding that Melbourne is the most affordable capital city on the eastern seaboard, this is a very positive initiative.

Finally, the funds raised through the infrastructure contribution will average around $60 million a year, of which $30 million will be directed to state infrastructure in those areas, and of the remaining amount, the bulk will be devoted to a new growth areas development fund from which councils in the growth areas will be able to apply for funding for infrastructure projects in a way that is very similar to the Regional Infrastructure Development Fund.

This package today is all about affordability, livability and sustainability. It confirms our city and our state as the best place to live, and it will of course be reinforced next year when we release our regional statement, the preparation of which is being overseen by the Minister for Regional and Rural Development, the member

Public Transport

Public transport: government performance Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — My question is to the Premier. Given that the Premier has previously blamed the problems in public transport infrastructure on Jeff Kennett, John Howard, population growth, petrol prices, Connex and now the Rudd government, at what stage does the Premier actually take responsibility for the public transport chaos in Victoria?

Mr Brumby's ripost on Public Transport

Mr BRUMBY (Premier) — I thank the honourable member for his question, and I am proud to say that our public transport system in Victoria is carrying more passengers than it ever has in its history — by a long way. Our rail system alone is handling 201 million passenger movements this year. That is the highest number of movements in the history of our state. It is more than in the post-war migration years and considerably more than in any recent decade. We are carrying that number of passengers because we have made investments in the system. Before the end of the year we will be announcing further investments so that we cater for the strong growth that is occurring in our public transport system.

The honourable member who asked the question referred to a former Premier from the 1990s. Our system today is carrying well over twice the number of passengers that it was carrying in the 1990s, and we are doing it because we have made investments in the system and because we have strong population growth and a strong economy.

Just in the last year — since 30 July 2007, when I became Premier — we have purchased 50 new V/Locity carriages and committed to the $501 million north-east revitalisation project with the Rudd government, which is the biggest rail project in country Victoria in decades. Also, we have launched the new timetable with over 633 extra train services a week. We have rolled out the early bird scheme. We have purchased eight extra new metro trains, which brings the total order to 18.

We have opened the new electrified line to Craigieburn; with new stations at Roxburgh Park and Craigieburn, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 ASSEMBLY 4459 and we have added new services at Craigieburn. We have rolled out new bus routes between North Melbourne station and Grattan Street and the Royal Melbourne Hospital. We have upgraded the St Kilda Road tramway.

In the 2008–09 budget we announced a $794 million infrastructure boost to improve public transport. There was $275 million for improvements at Laverton, Westall and Craigieburn; $3 million to upgrade Prahran and Windsor stations; $10.4 million for design works for the extension of the Epping line to South Morang; $32 million for around 1700 new car parking spaces at 10 stations and the upgrading of Noble Park station to premium status; plus $14.7 million to expand bus and coach services to South Gippsland and the Bass Coast; $254 million for the maintenance of country rail lines; and $64 million to boost the NightRider service.

All these things represent the most significant investment we have had in public transport in this state.

What we are endeavouring to do is turn what has been a low-volume suburban system into a modern metro system. We will — — Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER — Order! The opposition will cooperate!
Mr BRUMBY — As I have indicated on numerous occasions, before the end of the year we will respond to the Eddington report with the Victorian transport plan, and that will put in place the framework for the further long-term growth of our system. It will provide short-term, medium-term and long-term measures and create in Melbourne and across the state a transport system which is the best in Australia.

Story by Jill Redwood

The immense trees that have sheltered and raised hundreds of generations of owls and gliding possums are now being hacked down by VicForests. The understorey of tree ferns and waratahs, twining silkpod and musk daisy bush are being crushed into the mud by 40 tonne bulldozers.

Victoria’s Brumby government is allowing their logging department to destroy these ancient treasures - home to threatened species like the Powerful and Sooty Owls, the Long-footed Potoroo and the secretive Spot-tailed Quoll.

This is the forest that was promised for protection in 2006 by the State Labor Government. So why is it being destroyed now? … (click here) read on …

Flawed maps and broken promises

In 2006, the then premier, Steve Bracks, made a promise to “protect all significant stands of old growth currently available for logging”. This, with several other areas called icon forests amounted to about 41,000 ha. However, he also promised there would be no impact on the logging industry - an impossible undertaking.

A few days before the 2006 election, the Environment Minister’s office (then John Thwaites) did a quick and dirty job of throwing the old growth maps together -. It was so badly mapped it included cow paddocks, logged forest and burnt regeneration. In the two years since this promise was given, hundreds of hectares of Old Growth Forest have been logged while conservation groups tried to engage a stubborn government to reassess the maps. Cow paddocks were safely protected, but magnificent old growth was crashing to the ground.

Fiction writers employed while old growth falls.

Post election, the Labor government engaged a couple of logging industry supporters to write a report on how the industry in East Gippsland would manage if these forests were protected. Pete Steedman was an old ALP head-kicking hack and Graham Gooding was the former head of the Victorian Association of Forest Industries. The result was a great piece of fiction and spin that only the logging industry can create. For instance, despite the fact that the declining logging industry provides less than 2% of the region’s employment, their document claimed it was 50% or more. Fearful of a union backlash, the government did nothing - no reassessment of maps, no protection, no tourist walks, no pay-outs; just more clearfelling of old growth forests.

The year 2500 is a long time to wait for these big trees to regrow again.

Old Growth Walk for visitors

The maps also left out the very area that was promised for the visitors’ walk. In the 2006 policy document Victoria’s National Parks and Biodiversity, Mr Bracks stated he would “Invest $1.3 million to create … the Great Short Walks of East Gippsland”. This was to include the “Old Growth Walk - Goongerah” (Goongerah is the nearest small town to Brown Mountain).

In the late 1990s, a member of EEG discovered this magnificent stand of forest and called it the Valley of the Giants. Since then hundreds of visitors have experienced these grand trees, which have names like Almo, Lofty, Uncle George, Steadfast and Big Foot. The track was tagged and has become a well known but unofficial walk that is easy to access on a gentle slope and with the Brown Mountain Creek rainforest running through the centre. We have taken two parties of government officials in there in order to negotiate this area becoming formally recognised as a walk. Now half of it has been hacked down.

VicForests rides roughshod over government policy

VicForests was created in August 2004 to ensure logging public forests was a profitable business. It has never made a profit since then despite millions in govt handouts. The unruly band of old-school loggers within VicForests could see that Brown Mountain might be protected before they could get to it’s real estate, so in early 2007, they planned for last stands of unprotected old growth to wiped out.

EEG duly sent our formal objection to VicForests, as part of the sham called ‘public consultation’. VicForests’ duly told us that it was all perfectly legal and to bugger off. They later told the Minister’s office they didn’t know this coupe was contentious or a planned walk!

In late October 2008, VicForests sent the loggers in to start wiping these carbon, water and wildlife rich forests off the face of the planet. Not to mention our old growth walk. Not only that but they had to gall to name the coupe “The Walk” in full knowledge of what they were doing; another example of the goading, fibbing, cowboy nature of this organisation.

These trees would have been mature when Shakespeare was writing his plays. The tree ferns that shelter beneath them could be twice as old. The forests have survived hundreds of years of storms, snow, drought and the occasional fire. They are now being obliterated from the landscape in 4 weeks by a team of 5 men - as part of an “approved logging operation”. Work for five blokes for four weeks. Gone forever.

The great irony is that in 1995, when John Brumby was in opposition, he made a very stirring speech at a forest rally in Melbourne.

"... that's what we'll do when we're in government
- no more export woodchipping,
an industry in the future based
on plantations and the proper protection
of our high conservation value forests." (John Brumby 1995)

See the link below, for the video footage of his powerful words.

http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/pvmedia/videos/brumby-for-web.mov/view?searchterm=brumby

Who is the government afraid of?

Is this government so easily cowered by a bunch of ruthless welfare recipients that run VicForests? Or is it the weedy might of the loggers union that scares them?

Please - write letters to Gavin Jennings and John Brumby expressing your outrage. Enough old growth forest has been destroyed and converted to pulpwood farms in East Gippsland over the past 40 years. Far too much of the little that remains has been lost since their 2006 promise to protect our old growth.

The logging of this most significant stand of old growth on Brown Mountain is the ultimate statement of contempt for the public’s deep concern and love for our ancient native forests.

Hon John Brumby
Premier of Victoria
1 Treasury Place
Melbourne, Vic 3002
john.brumby[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au

Hon Gavin Jennings
Minister for Environment,
Level 22
50 Lonsdale St
Melbourne, Vic 3002
Gavin.Jennings[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au