Victoria

Premier Denis Napthine and Planning Minister Matthew Guy, on Wednesday 9th October, launched the much anticipated planning and transport blueprint, Plan Melbourne, which according to the press release, will shape how Melbournians live and work over the next 40 years.

Despite many worthy motherhood statements of intent in the document, the blueprint will largely be determined by the development industry and property interests, rather than residents. It ignores the fact that hospitals, schools, public transport, roads are already stretched to the limit. The "jobs" is about ramping up opportunities for property developers, and the mortgage industries.

As part of the strategy to be announced by Premier Denis Napthine and Minister for Planning Matthew Guy, the towns of Bacchus Marsh, Ballan, Broadford, Kilmore, Warragul-Drouin and Wonthaggi are designated as new major population and employment towns for growth.

Any balanced sense of professional and holistic planning is being discarded to fast-track high density suburbs, to promote growth.

"With Victoria?s population projected to rise to 8.4 million by 2050, regional cities and towns are well-placed to take a greater share of population growth. A key initiative of Plan Melbourne is to unlock the growth potential of these cities – so they can accommodate a
greater proportion of the state?s future growth – and provide good transport connections between them and Melbourne. This will create a 'State of Cities' where there are greater choices for people about where to live, work or start a business,” Mr Guy said.

The more houses and apartments are built, the more the growth will continue. It's self-fulfilling prophesy! Residents in growth areas will be denied the right to object to multi-storey developments in their area. This is about "streamlining" permits for property developers, and fast-tracking growth!

"Victoria's population has increased by 15 per cent in the last decade, but 86 per cent of this growth has occurred in Melbourne. Under Plan Melbourne, by providing opportunities for decentralized population and employment growth in regional cities, we can increase their size and ability to function independently. We're providing Victorians with more choices about where they live and work.”

One million additional homes will be needed in Melbourne by 2050 when the population is expected to reach 6.5 million.

Several key infrastructure projects also form part of the plan, including East West Link, the Melbourne Metro Rail project and the north east link, which will connect the Metropolitan Ring Road and Eastlink.

Planning academic Michael Buxton, professor of Planning at RMIT, commented that the document fails to deliver on major issues facing a rapidly growing Melbourne including, with no allocated spending on necessary public transport infrastructure to deal with outer urban growth corridors. He also notes urban growth boundaries have already been expanded by 43,000 ha.

This 40 year plan is not a grass-roots one, with democratic input, created with long-term considerations of costs, of jobs growth failing to keep abreast with population growth, the loss of soils and biodiversity, entrenched debts, the multiplying demand on natural resources such our forests, and the cost of utilities such as water and power. The 13 year drought Victoria suffered is lost in political memory! There's no concession to climate change, and the fact that more people will need to rely on air-conditioning and power, as inevitable in high density housing.

The "new" Plan Melbourne strategy aims to curb the city’s suburban sprawl by establishing a permanent metropolitan urban boundary and distributing future population growth to other regions. How many times have we heard this? The urban boundary is nothing more than an imaginary, fictional line that keeps expanding with Melbourne's population obesity!

Shifting population growth to regional towns is simply diverting Melbourne's growth problems, but not solving it. It will mean they share more of our woes, including infrastructure overload, increasing costs of living and spreading unaffordable housing.

Since the beginning of 2000, the city’s population grew by a whopping 27%, or more than 900,000 people. If growth continues at that pace – 2% per annum – then Melbourne’s population would surpass 5 million by 2025, overtake Sydney by 2037, and hit 8 million by 2049.

Why should Melbourne's population, hurtling towards more than 8.5 million by 2050, be considered inevitable? As a consequence, we must deregulate and streamline planning to accommodate it!

Other State and Federal government policies are criticized, dissected, evaluated, supported or rejected - as is our democratic right. When it comes to our politically-engineered population growth, why is it a taboo subject?

The ABS reveals that natural increase and net overseas migration contributed 40% and 60% respectively to Australia's total population growth for the year ended 31 March 2013. It's politically-engineered growth, and assumed as natural, inevitable, desirable, achievable, affordable or sustainable. Nothing about the environment is mentioned, or the native vegetation and agricultural land that will be buried under housing!

With little innovation, imagination, strengthening of education and skills-training, and research into future-proofing our energy sources and mitigating against climate change, "growth" has become an economic industry itself! It's one that must keep being perpetuated. despite the fact that we are hurdling towards the multiple "challenges" of mid-21st century. This is head-in-the-sand mentality of "growth is good" and "business as usual".

Back in 2010, the Victorian Government made a pre-election promise to increase penalties for breeders found committing acts of cruelty and to eliminate illegal and/or poorly run puppy farms. Considering this, it is appalling that the Government is recommended "revisions" to its Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses. This code sets out the minimum standards of accommodation, management and care required by breeding and rearing establishments. This revision would legalise some of the abhorrent conditions and practices regularly seen by RSPCA Inspectors at puppy factories.
(images are the property of Oscar's Law)

I and many of the caring members of the public, would like to see the end of intensive breeding of dogs and cats for domestic sales.  Why, when we have shelters overloaded and excessive numbers of animals being dumped and on death row, should these "businesses" operate anyway?

Companion animals should be that - companions.  It shouldn't be an industry.  More people are moving into units and apartment and animals are banned.  Shelters and rescue organisations/charities end up picking up the pieces, the high numbers of animals discarded by society because of over breeding.

Downgraded and inhumane conditions for the benefit of the industry

Under the revisions, staffed ‘business hours’ for breeding and rearing establishments have reduced from 12 to eight hours a day.  How are the animals meant to be cared for and their social/environmental needs met? 

Litters need care and attention and mother dogs should be nurtured and protected.  Long periods of isolation and non-attendance is not acceptable.  They don't need to provide any warm bedding and there's no cap to the amount of litters that dog can have, so it can be legally bred for birth to death.

Puppy factory dogs are viewed only for their ability to make their owners’ money. Puppies are often confined in crowded cages with no room to move.   The mortality rate of the puppies is quite high because veterinary care is scarcely provided. Puppies that do survive and are sold often suffer from ongoing health issues that the new owners have to pay for.

Vet checks to ensure animals are fit for breeding are no longer required before animals are bred from.  How are any standards of "animal welfare" to be improved?  Breeders will be able to declare an animal fit for sale – rather than vets.   How will they be qualified?

The recommendations allow for ‘any method’ of euthanasia as long as it is humane. Humane is not defined and ‘any method’ could, in theory, include shooting or blunt trauma, causing incredible suffering.  How is "humane" meant to be defined?  We can't feel the animals' pain.  This could mean animals are open to horrific attacks, and it's called "euthanasia".

There must be 24 hour per day veterinary access for the animals if they are sick or injured.  "Any method" is far from being acceptable and chillingly callous.

There would be no maximum breeding age or period that an animal could be bred from, meaning these animals can potentially spend their entire lifetime confined to breeding establishments.  Dogs and cats would be condemned as breeding machines, and valued for nothing more than producing litters.  How is this "animal welfare"?  This is commercial breeding, and all the evils associated with it.

Under the recommendations, some categories of puppies must not be left without food for more than 12 hours.  The feeding of raw offal is now permitted in conjunction with a complete worming program.  Standards of animal care are being weakened to cave into the industry's political and commercial powers.

A blight on our society

Puppy factories must end.  There's no way to soften and make acceptable the fact that they are inhumane and a blight on our society. 

If animals are to be adopted, first and foremost the potential buyers should go to one of the many shelters and homes for dogs and cats.  There are many needing homes.  Otherwise, they should go to a breeder and get expert advice.  Puppy factories operate in secret, and they can't be contacted. They are not transparent to the public.

These callous breeding facilities are producing animals for mass markets, without accountability.  Australians should be enlightened and our society should be walking and working towards more humane animal welfare systems, not in the retrograde darkness of lost and unwanted dogs and cats, and "businesses" breeding animals in cages for profits.  They are cruel and unjustified, and are producing litters of animals for an already saturated market. 

Pet shops should be linked to shelters and registered breeders, and not be allowed to sell the products from puppy factories.

Puppy factories must be banned

The Victorian government should ban puppy factories, not trying to weaken standards and loosen controls for the benefit of a few owners of these shameful establishments.  These dark places can't be justified by money or profits. The government should be setting high standards, not caving into profit-making through the use of small and defenceless social animals.

Oscar's Law

We can all help fight the genocide in Australia's pounds, promote rescue organisations and shelters as the first option to adopting, and change the way Australians gets their pets. Adoption is the intelligent alternative to impulse buying. No puppy factory whether it is 'clean', 'model', 'state of the art' or otherwise is the answer for mans best friend.

Oscars Law is an organisation committed to "We no longer want the pet industry to mislead us about what is acceptable for our animals”.

-Abolish the factory farming of companion animals.
-Ban the sale of companion animals from pets shops/online trading sites.
-Promote adoption through rescue groups/pounds/shelters

Who is Oscar?

Oscar was one of a number of dogs who were rescued from a puppy factory in central Victoria where they had been neglected to the point they required urgent veterinary care.

The list of ailments the dogs suffered was extensive, including:

Severe matting — the dogs had to be sedated in order to shave their painful matted fur away from their skin; ear infections; gum disease; and rotten teeth. Once their matted fur was shaved it was evident that painful grass seed abscesses covered their bodies. The dogs were so severely malnourished their irritated skin was like paper and they were grossly underweight.

Days later and recovering from surgery, Oscar was returned by authorities to the very people who failed to provide veterinary care and neglected all their dogs including Oscar. They have never been charged with cruelty and Oscar remains in the puppy factory.

Oscar’s Law Campaign is in memory of all the ‘Oscars’ hidden away on factory farms treated as breeding machines to supply the pet industry.

Make a submission to the DEPI

[email protected]

Submissions may be emailed to [email protected] or posted to

Postal Address:

Breeding and Rearing Code Review

Bureau of Animal Welfare
475 Mickleham Rd
Attwood, Vic, 3049

Hard copy submission must be post marked before 14 August 2013 to be accepted

More information

DEPI: domestic animal businesses- breeding and rearing code review

RSPCA - Take action on puppy factories

Measures are now in front of parliament to allow logging contracts to be signed up to 20 years and give the state-owned timber company VicForests more control over when and where to log.

The Leadbeater's Possum is a nationally threatened species.  II has been estimated that as few as 1,500 of these possums are left in the world. 

Like Lemmings jumping off the cliff towards deliberate mass suicide when their populations explode, VicForests are programmed for destruction.

http://www.demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/0905/lemmings-lemmings-retards-chuck-norris-demotivational-poster-1243451350.jpg

The Age: Is it too little and too late to save the leadbeaters possum

Ironically, the future of endangered Leadbeater's possum in hands of new government taskforce headed by Association of Forest Industries and Zoos Victoria. This does not sound like an independent or promising compromise. It puts the future of the threatened Leadbeaters Possums not in the hands of conservationists, but the industry that wants to wipe them out by destroying their homes – Victoria's Central Highlands Mountain Ash forests. It's like giving the Fox the responsibility of “caring” for the chickens!

It's been criticized as yet another committee when there is already a scientific recovery team dedicated to saving it. Any captive breeding programs to increase the numbers would mean they inevitably would be condemned to being permanently captivity unless there was viable habitats – old growth forests that take up to 100 years to grow and create holes for their homes.

The Age: Loggers to help save possums

It's an oxymoron, an alliance that's hard to give credibility to, considering their interests in anhilating the mammals to pave the way to access more timber for logging!

The Leadbeater's Possum is a nationally threatened species.  It has been estimated that as few as 1,500 of these possums are left in the world.  In 2009, around half of their habitat and their population was wiped out by the bushfire inferno that swept through Victoria.  The remaining Possums live in Victoria's Central Highlands forests,. but is one of the areas where logging is carried out by Victoria's State logging agency, VicForests.

Supreme Court Appeal - 24th June 2013

In 2011, MyEnvironment brought proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court seeking orders that VicForests be prevented from logging three coupes in Toolangi, near Healesville. The hearing, the leading expert on Leadbeater's Possum, Professor David Lindemayer, gave evidence that the coupes concerned were habitat for the Possum.

The Court ultimately found that the legal prescriptions in place did not protect the Toolangi coupes, and VicForests was permitted to chop them down. 

MyEnvironment have now appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal will decide whether the Supreme Court's decision that the Toolangi coupes are not protected from logging is correct.

Recently, Leadbeater experts have taken the extraordinary step of coming forward to warn that the Leadbeater Possum faces a very real threat of extinction in the near future, a threat which is increased by logging.

In a letter published in the journal Science, two conservation scientists have accused the Victorian Government of taking calculated actions to substantially reduce the viability of the endangered species.

One of the scientists, Australian National University ecologist Professor Lindenmayer, has studied the Leadbeater's possum and its habitat for more than 30 years.

Professors David Lindenmayer and Hugh Possingham say, "Government-sanctioned legal logging of the reserve system will significantly increase the chance of extinction of Leadbeater's possum. To the best of our knowledge, and despite state and national threatened species legislation, this is the first time an Australian government has taken calculated actions to substantially reduce the viability of an IUCN-listed endangered species with full knowledge of the likely consequences."

Victorian Governmnet knowingly driving Leadbeaters Possums to extinction

Actually it's not the only case of government taking calculated action towards increasing the threats to already threatened species. Agriculture, industries, infrastructure and urban sprawl are continually pushing threatened species towards extinction through habitat loss, pollution and destruction. The aim of perpetual economic-growth means whittling away our natural resources and heritage, and can't be sustained. It's incremental consumption and destruction of living ecological systems means that the threats our fauna and fauna, and even world heritage areas, are never safe from developments and industries.

Victoria's state-owned timber company will reduce logging by 25 per cent in the bushfire-ravaged mountain ash forests of the central highlands – but will wait until mid-2017 to make the shift.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs – VicForests

VicForests' director of corporate affairs, Nathan Trushell, said the move, to reduce logging by 25% in the Central highlands, would result in the loss of up to 200 jobs. The decision to wait until 2017 to reduce logging had been made to allow the broader industry time to adjust, Mr Trushell said. Ironically, VicForests will continue their destruction even to the point that their own industry will be forced to face “extinction” in the future.

Jobs are temporary anyway, but our environment and living species live in the long term. People can retrain and relocate, but not threatened communities.

Victorian forests in the hands of the Victorian government means that our forests are under threat from their vested interests in VicForests' timber profits. That a threatened species will be deliberately driven to extinction means that the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act is pure political spin of no substance.

There's no "balance" between the social, economic and environmental of logging native forests - as VicForests claim. They are being logged faster than old growth forests can recover. There's no social benefits either if heritage native forests are destroyed, historic central highland communities are devastated, and Victoria's faunal emblem ends up joining other extinct species on museum shelves. Ironically, they have come to the end of the line with regards to economic benefits too if VicForests are logging Victoria's sawlog forests out of existence.

Lemmings

Like Lemmings jumping off the cliff towards deliberate mass suicide when their populations explode, VicForests are programmed for destruction. Despite a small concession, they will continue their logging vandalism, consuming the homes of iconic native species, destroying important rain-catchment areas, even if their activities are to their own detriment by making their own industry "extinct"!

Unfortunately our government's enthusiasm of ensuring “jobs” for logging contractors will swallow tracts of rain catchment areas, iconic native species and the integrity of native forests – strongholds of conservation and our ecological heritage.

The decline in Mountain Ash forests not only hurts Leadbeater's, but also a range of key species such as the Sooty Owl or Spot-tailed Quoll, whose protection should also be considered.

These elusive and endearing iconic possums, so small they can fit into a hand, have become pivotal and representative of the conflict between jobs, profits, government power, the demand for natural resources, protecting the heritage and biodiversity that belongs to all generations and species, and the moral and ethical duty of care to conserve native species and their vital habitats.

Petition : Defer the Bill that would lock in long term native forests logging

Once again members of the Victorian and Tasmanian Branch of Sustainable Population Australia braved the usual dreadful hot conditions at the Sustainable Living Festival in Melbourne, which has just come to an end.

 

Candobetter supports SPA's message and admires SPA Victoria.  We salute them for their almost single handed contribution to opening debate in Victoria on population numbers.

Jill Quirk, the President of the Victorian Branch, has shown great skill in bringing together various conservation and environment organisations, as well as planning activists, together on the issue of population growth.

It is hard to imagine that only a few years ago most environmental and planning activists actually could not see the connection. Although they could see the connection between development and loss of ammenity, democracy and natural environment, they still believed the government's dishonest pretention that population growth in Victoria was falling. They did not understand what was pushing overdevelopment and they often did not realise that their local problems were repeated not just in other suburbs, but in other states, all across Australia.

Despite some attempts to silence debate from bullies who claim affiliation with Right to Life, the Socialist Alliance and the (non-incorporated) Refugee Action Alliance and seem to work to the advantage of developers and government, it has become possible to educate more people on what is actually happening, as our government tries to engineer our population and deprive communities of natural ammenity and citizens of reasonable rights to enjoy their property.

It is through the experience of trying to stop forced population engineering for commercial purposes that only bring benefits to a very narrow minority that more and more people are realising that effective democracy in Australia is an illusion.  We may be able to talk, but we have little or no means to organise and act.

As we understand it, individual States are free to “manage” their own (protected) wildlife. However, the "management" of wildlife ends up evolving into a business of exponential commercial proportions, with momentum to keep supplying the meat and skins for domestic use and international export markets. (Photographs by Brett Clifton)

(Photographs by Brett Clifton)[1]

‘Management’ becomes mandatory to keep up demands, and we end up with a commercial kangaroo meat trade in Victoria, until now, stating there are NOT enough kangaroos in Victoria to sustain a commercial kangaroo killing industry in the State.

Authority to Control Wildlife permits granted willy-nilly by dysfunctional state departments

Victoria's deficient and seriously flawed system of ATCW (Authority to Control Wildlife) permits must be addressed and scrutinised. It's far too easy for landholders to gain ATCW permits, without getting advice on non-lethal alternatives. With so much of Victoria's land in private hands, the vicissitudes of fires, droughts, floods, on top of all the human impacts, our wildlife must be protected properly and with integrity. We already have the highest mammal extinction rate of the modern world. There should be wildlife corridors linked to national and state parks, then farmers blocking their transits would not be able to label them a "pest" - and apply for permits to "control" (kill) native animals. Planning has devolved into creating real estate opportunities rather than real planning for biodiversity and our environment. Kangaroos breed very quickly? Only about 25% of joeys survive in the wild. Kangaroos are endemic to Australia, and are native animals. Their numbers increase when there is good feed, and naturally decline in the poor times. They live in perfect harmony with the environment, and 16 million years of experience puts them well ahead of us modern humans.

State crocodile tears for starving kangaroos don't fool wildlife carers

The false empathy with the kangaroos that will "starve" and therefore must be killed is disturbing and hypocritical. The hideous massacre of kangaroos in Canberra, ACT, is shameful, Healthy kangaroos were slaughtered and incredibly became scapegoats for conservation concerns. Then the graziers blame Russia, a country that sensibly ended the import of kangaroo meat for hygiene and health concern. Livestock are eating the grass, and causing havoc is another excuse for “management”. It's the livestock industries that are responsible for high extinction rates in Australia. They denude the country of grass, eating much more than kangaroos and doing untold damage, with their cloven hooves. Human overpopulation in the Middle East and South East Asia will drive demands for live exports, further exacerbating the problem. Australia has one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world, with 22 mammals becoming extinct over the past 200 years.

THINKK Research group at Sydney University of Technology

A report by THINKK, a research group at the University of Technology, Sydney, proved that kangaroos rarely compete with sheep and cattle for pasture?—?calling into question the legality of culling animals on the grounds that they are competing for food. The contrary it true – livestock compete with kangaroos for food, and their rapacious feeding habits and consumption pattern are threatening kangaroo survival! Kangaroos have their first young at around 3 years; they can raise one joey per year; joeys are dependent for 18 months; joeys have high rates of mortality. How can graziers and others suggest that populations can “explode”? How can “researchers” seriously provide graphs which double or triple populations, and claim that their monitoring in any sense “tracks” populations? If there are 100 kangaroos one year, and a population has a M:F ratio of 1:1, of the 50 or so does that could conceivably conceive, only 25% or so of these are likely to successfully raise their young to independence, and there may be 110 or 115 the next year, period.

Getting things in proportion

While kangaroos, other native species, and the natural living environment generally, are often considered to be in conflict with agriculture, does this label them all as “pests”? Those native species which persist in developed landscapes are the displaced remnants and tatters of native fauna trying to subsist within a landscape which has been fundamentally transformed by the human pursuit of production objectives. The power of the States must be quelled and the mask of “managing” kangaroo numbers must not be driving the commercial kangaroo killing industry, which shames Australia, the nation of the highest mammal extinctions in the world. We strenuously object to the suggestion that the industry expand to China and Russia. Aboriginal people respectfully killed one kangaroo at a time for sustenance and they used every bit of their totem kangaroo they did not kill on an industrial scale as happens today! The acquisition of a taste for kangaroo meat, by over a billion people in China and Russia , will ensure another species suffers and eventually becomes extinct.

 

NOTES

[1] Source of photographs

The source of the photographs was Brett Clifton and the subject was a kangaroo called Jelly and it was called, "January 2013: Jelly and the art of scratching."  You can view the series of three of this lively kangaroo at Brett Clifton's famous "A Kanga a Day" pages, here at brettclifton.com/wordpress/?p=1747

Original Source of article:

This article is based on a letter sent to the Hon Tony Burke, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (ALP), with a copy to the Hon Greg Hunt, (Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage, and Federal Member for Flinders, Victoria), on February 8, 2013 by Maryland Wilson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

Update, 27 June 2014: Added links to other stories, including more recent stories, about the Mitchell River Flying Foxes, in response to more comments: Flying Foxes hounded from their habitat (July 2013(?), Environment East Gippsland), Council keen to remove bat-attracting trees (23/1/14, ABC), Chester backs push for Bairnsdale bats removal (21/5/14, ABC), Flying foxes torment Bairnsdale community like bats out of hell (14/6/14, Herald Sun).

Update, 27 June 2014: Other stories, including more recent stories, about the Mitchell River Flying Foxes: Chester backs push for Bairnsdale bats removal (21/5/14, ABC), Flying foxes torment Bairnsdale community like bats out of hell (14/6/14, Herald Sun), Council keen to remove bat-attracting trees (23/1/14, ABC), Flying Foxes hounded from their habitat (July 2013(?), Environment East Gippsland).

There is a breeding colony of grey headed flying foxes at Bairnsdale in poplar trees along the bank of the Mitchell River in Bairnsdale. It is now threatened by the East Gippsland Shire. This article, by Bob McDonald, contains a fascinating history of flying fox colonies in early Victoria, as well as some keen scientific observations. (Photos also by Bob McDonald.)

 

This letter is first to request submission to the federal process. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=5017

( See end of article for what you can do to help.[1])

In 1999 the species was classified as "Vulnerable to extinction" in The Action Plan for Australian Bats,^[20] and has since been protected across its range under Australian federal law. As of 2008 the species is listed as "Vulnerable" on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. from the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-headed_flying_fox#cite_note-17

The grey-headed flying fox summer nursery colony has been on the Mitchell River Bank for 10 years.  This species, despite what DSE and some zoologists say - has been present in Victoria continuously.  The removal of colonies from Sale and elsewhere last century, accompanied by the removal of vegetation they require for a summer breeding colonies had seen these colonies lost to the south of the state. The creation of a rainforest in the Melbourne Botanical Gardens and later, around 2002-03 the growth of poplars with a dense weedy understory at Bairnsdale, has enabled them to establish two summer breeding colonies. The one from the Botanical Gardens was forcibly evicted and the grey headed flying foxes moved to red gums on the banks of the Yarra River where they suffer a significantly increased mortality rate. 

The East Gippsland Shire, in response to resident’s complaints, established a process to fell the poplars in stages and replace them with native vegetation - continuing 'revegetation program'. Unfortunately designing these plantings no consideration has been given to the basic physical requirements of the grey - headed flying foxes nursery area.  From past experience vegetation will have to be least 2-30 years of age or even much older before it can provide the physical structure - especially shelter from sun - required.

The properties affected - 2-5 - have a legitimate grievance - but no steps have been taken to mitigate the impact of grey-headed flying foxes on these properties. The noise volumes experienced by residents and frequency has not been measured and proximity of the flying foxes to the properties has not been mapped. The proposal of the Shire here; http://www.eastgippsland.vic.gov.au/Your_Say/Draft_Grey-headed_Flying-fox_Roost_Site_Management_and_Action is actually illegal under the EBPC Act 1999.  By running their consultative process at the same time as the one for the federal review there has been a large degree of confusion. 

IF ANY TREES ARE CUT DOWN PLEASE RING DREW McLean 0417 418 070 and 02 6274 2384 IMMEDIATELY. UNLESS FEDERAL APPROVAL IS GIVEN THE PENALTIES ARE FINES AND/OR JAIL SENTENCES. 

I have attached an article that I wrote in last weeks (Bairnsdale) Advertiser and basic internet searches will reveal both that Grey-headed flying foxes are likely primates http://www.batcon.org/index.php/media-and-info/bats-archives.html?task=viewArticle&magArticleID=259  and their threatened status, nationally and internationally.

I am doing what I can but I would really appreciate any help and assistance that any of you could generate. Submissions for the federal process (see below) close on the 15th of February. The council date for closure of submissions finishes on the same day - but Kate Nelson of the East Gippsland Shire indicated on local ABC Radio yesterday that the council will be clearing the poplars out over 18 months.  This will lead to the death of grey-headed flying foxes, especially the young, and the loss of the breeding colony and apparently pre-empts the process established by the shire.

The alternative approach is outlined in the letter below and involves continuing the rainforest revegetation on all available public land, developing tourism potential and only removing the poplars in two or three decades time when the grey headed flying foxes move on. 

Before the council takes any further action it must;

1. Abide by the Australian Federal Law

2. Actually evaluate the nuisance caused to a few residents by the fruit bats and undertake measures to reduce their impact

3. Pay for or jointly fund research to determine what the physical parameters are for this nursery colony,

        a. the temperature range within the colony,

        b. the current mortality rate of young and adult grey-headed flying foxes and the cause of that mortality

        c. collate all the known counts of animals in this colony and undertake a monitoring the numbers of adults and young

4. Measure the noise nuisance caused to residents and undertake research to determine what mitigation measures are required and install those that do not impact grey-headed flying foxes such as sound barriers etc.

Bob McDonald

 

NOTES

 

[1]

The point Bob is trying to get across is for people to send submissions to: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601

Link for submissions      http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=5017

Send copies to the East Gippsland Shire and The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water etc.

East Gippsland Shire address:  

Grey-headed Flying-fox Feedback

PO Box 1618

Bairnsdale Vic 3875

 Email correspondence can be sent to [email protected]

 All feedback must be received by 4.00pm on the 15^th of February 2013.

 

 

Effectiveness of Compliance Activities:
Departments of Primary Industries and Sustainability and Environment

Victorian Auditor General's Report October 2012

In a report released 24th October, Auditor General Des Pearson said DSE's compliance standards were worse than DPI but neither were adequate. He said neither department could be sure its compliance activities contributed to protecting natural resources, primary industries and the environment as the legislation intended.

Neither DPI nor DSE has a comprehensive whole-of-organisation, risk-based approach to managing their compliance responsibilities. They have not clearly identified how compliance activities contribute to achieving legislative objectives and corporate outcomes, how they measure success, or how they monitor and report compliance performance.

The departments of Primary Industries (DPI) and Sustainability and Environment (DSE) are responsible for sustainably managing the state’s environment, primary industries and natural resources. This includes managing compliance for such diverse sectors as fisheries, agriculture, mining, parks, forests and biodiversity protection. Without controls, unsustainable use can contribute to the loss of high-value species, ecosystems and industries, such as whales, red gum forests and the abalone fishing industry. In other words, “business as usual” is not an option as biodiversity will be eradicated and the State sterilised of ecological “services” needed for our (growing) population.

Issues arising from state environment laws being broken could include illegal logging, illegal duck hunting, inconsistent rabbit control, and introduction of pest species, among numerous others, the Auditor-General's report says.

Our State's emblem, the Leadbeaters Possum, is deliberately being driven to extinction by logging in state old-growth forests. There's no protection for endangered species or control of threatening processes causing it.

Noncompliance can contribute to the loss of high-value species, ecosystems and industries. For other species and systems, the cumulative impacts of environmental crime are incremental and less obvious. Obvious, yes, because we can't sustain any life on a dead landscape!

Wild licences and Permits

The Auditor-General recommends that The Department of Sustainability and Environment should:

strengthen its management of wildlife and plant licences and permits by:
• upgrading the wildlife and plant licence and permit systems without further delay
• requiring staff to record all relevant information in the systems, such as licensee inspections and interviews, and periodically reviewing how they use the systems
• accurately recording the number of licences, permits and authorisations it issues, and making this information publicly available
• reviewing its policy on using licence conditions and sanctions as a response to noncompliance.

Greens Leader Greg Barber wanted a report from DSE about Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW). The DSE responded that there is "no central electronic management system that allows for such searches”. Also, relevant officers have advices that individual documents are not scanned, and the report would mean scanning for 4 pages from 8500 pages across 5 regions. The photocopying charges would be over $1,700.00 and 566 hours or 16 working weeks to examine files and to copy and collate relevant materials for his FOI request! Hardly efficient or transparent filing systems or record control for accountability!

Authority to Control Wildlife permits issued under cloak of secrecy

Authority to Control wildlife permits have been liberally distributed to land-holders without proper assessment and non-lethal alternatives. The quality and consistency of DSE’s processes for issuing wildlife and plant licences and permits varies greatly. It is difficult to measure the consequences of this because DSE does not monitor them adequately. DSE’s wildlife licensing is managed by a central licensing team, using a central licensing database. While the process is only partially documented, the small team knows the system well and works cohesively.

In contrast, plant and wildlife permits and authorisations for killing wildlife are issued by compliance staff across the five regions. This creates significant potential for inconsistency and until recently, there has been little guidance for them on how to address this. DSE introduced a flora permits policy in June 2012, providing regions with comprehensive and detailed .

The report exposes that there is very little programmed compliance monitoring of licences, permits or authorities to control wildlife .

Unsustainable industries

Industries such as agriculture, coal mining and forestry are important to Victoria’s economy, providing jobs and producing food, electricity and other commodities for local use and export. Other sectors such as recreational fishing and state parks have significant social value. All of these require controls, or regulations, to manage them sustainably so that our environment, economy and social values are protected.

Without controls, unsustainable use can contribute to the loss of high-value species, ecosystems and industries, such as whales, red gum forests and the abalone fishing industry. For other species and systems, the cumulative impacts of noncompliance are incremental and less obvious. In other words, precedents that fail to manage or control species and ecosystems get propagated down the line of control and the impacts balloon over time.

The departments of Primary Industries (DPI) and Sustainability and Environment (DSE) do not have the whole-of-department, risk-based compliance frameworks needed to secure balanced and effective actions across their compliance responsibilities. Both are now strengthening their approaches, particularly DPI.

The report recommends that the Department of Sustainability and Environment should improve its regional compliance planning and strengthen its management of wildlife and plant licences and permits.

Conclusion
Neither DPI nor DSE has a comprehensive whole-of-organisation, risk-based approach to managing their compliance responsibilities. They have not clearly identified how compliance activities contribute to achieving legislative objectives and corporate outcomes, how they measure success, or how they monitor and report compliance performance.

Download the report

NEW POPULATION BOOK HOLDS SOLUTIONS TO HABITAT DEPLETION: Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it. Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals."

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council has taken unprecedented steps towards preparing a case for negligence against the Victorian Government and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) for failing to protect Victorian Wildlife and failing to assign official 'Threatened Status' to species under threat. The Victorian Auditor General in 2009 warned that the Victorian government had failed to uphold their charter to fully implement the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 but the Government has since done nothing about this. There is at present no effective protection for wildlife in Victoria. The Department of Sustainability has declined into a kind of rubber stamp office-front for shooting licenses with an agenda mostly outsourced to corporate interests for massive urbanisation of the state.

Australian Wildlife Protection Council
September 16, 2012

Part One

A Case for Negligence by the Victorian Government and the Department of Sustainability and Environment, (DSE) for failing to protect Victorian wildlife. DSE fails to assign official "Threatened Status" to species under threat.

Former Executive Director Dr Ian Miles arranged for DSE Adrian Moorrees, Project Manager, Actions for Biodiversity Conservation (ABC), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division to demonstrate to AWPC the DSE Actions Biodiversity Conservation (ABC) Data Base system.

”DSE uses an inadequate Victoria-wide definition of ‘threatened’ which means that local populations can be extinguished without sounding the alarm so long as some numbers remain for the whole state; pockets where animals appear numerous, due to fragmented populations trapped in small areas, are not assigned official “threatened” status. Little effective tab is kept of numbers. More and more native species simply vanish!”
Sheila Newman Land- Use Planner and Environment Sociologist

The Victorian Government and DSE fail to uphold their charter to fully implement the Flora and Fauna (FFG) Act 1988. An important requirement under the FFG Act is the development of a ‘Flora and Fauna Strategy’ (Biodiversity Strategy). The former Government committed to renewing the Biodiversity Strategy and released a draft for public comment in June 2010. The Baillieu Government indicates that they have no plans to revive it.

The 2009 Auditor Generals’ Report revealed that “As a general rule the processes and measures available to conserve and protect flora and fauna have been abandoned by DSE because of their perceived complexity and difficulty of administering the provisions.” Lack of resources was cited as the reason for poor implementation of the FFG Act. As a result of this failure to uphold their charter, many of the legal measures to protect flora and fauna have never been implemented. The Auditor General’s Report was damming; the FFG Act no longer provides an effective framework for the protection of flora and fauna.

• DSE has not implemented 2009 recommendations made by the Victorian Auditor General
• DSE has failed to improve the ‘threatened species list
• The Victorian Government has failed to provide adequate resources to implement critical work.
• DSE has not published a compliance monitoring and enforcement policy
• DSE has not promoted transparency, accountability by identifying key information about
implementation.
• DSE has not provided annual reports containing statements of implementation of flora and fauna conservation and management of their objectives.
• Victoria’s Biodiversity Strategy is significantly out of date.
• The Biodiversity Strategy was not approved before the change in Government and there is no set time frame for the strategies release and DSE have removed it from their web site.
• There is no indication that the Victoria Government is moving to adopt the existing draft or develop a new strategy.
Human population growth is causing environmental changes and coupled with climatic weather changes should make the implementation of the FFG Act a priority by any Victorian Government. Ignoring the significance of these events and failure By DSE and the present Victorian Government to take precautionary measures will result in the total destruction of our flora and fauna.

The Victorian Government and DSE are also guilty of negligence pertaining to the management and issuing of Authority to Control Wildlife Permits (ATCW). They have also shown a decided bias and are selective when nominating Committees set up for wildlife management. The Scientific Advisory Committee was established under Section 8 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

A new panel was appointed in March 2012 to oversee wildlife control and to assess applications to control wildlife which are of significant community interest. The panel consists of:

University of Melbourne - there are questions about ‘ethical practices’ within the zoology department
Bureau of Animal Welfare (DPI) - has a vested interest in domestic stock and little interest in wildlife
Zoos Victoria - the main objective of zoos is for captive breeding programs for endangered animals
RSPCA - has little interest in native animals with their emphasis being on domestic pets

There is no representation on this panel by independent persons or wildlife groups.
Pernicious (meaning destructive, very harmful) evasion can be applied to both examples used here.

The following Motion was moved at the Australian Wildlife Protection Council 2012 AGM:

Ciewen Hickey
I move
(a) that the Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc 2012 AGM challenges the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the Victorian Government for negligence regarding their compliance with the DSE Fact sheet 1 – Issuing of Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW)Permits. DSE is responsible for the management of Victorian wildlife and it is in this area that DSE has shown negligence in their statutory responsibility. Australian native animals belong to the Crown and the DSE has a Duty of Care to protect them and the habitat they need to survive. The DSE is bound by Rules and Regulations set by the Victorian Government, which is voted into power by the people and for the people. They are given a Mandate to manage State affairs on behalf of the people –
and I further move

(b) that the Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc challenges the DSE and the Victorian Government for failing to implement provisions of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 to protect wildlife. Concern about threatened waterbirds being shot by game shooters, leaving wounded, maimed unprotected threatened species, makes a mockery of the "guarantee".

Freedom of Information (FOI) obtained by the Victorian Greens Party DSE Authority to Control Wildlife Permits (ATCW) can be viewed at:

http://vicmps.greens.org.au/content/authority-control-wildlife-permits-issued-under-cloak-secrecy

ATCW Permits Summary (Statewide) 2011
Species Permits Max No
Australia fur seal 2 110
Australian magpie 17 340
Australian magpie lark 3 22
Australian raven 75 2326
Australian shelduck 11 205
Australian white ibis 2 50
Black kite 2 40
Black swan 1 10
Black faced cuckoo-shrike 3 25
Black tailed native hen 6 170
Cape barren geese 2 302
Common brushtail possum 5 126
Common ringtail possum 1 5
Common wombat 134 1612
Crimsom Rosella 19 525
Dingo 1 10
Eastern brown snake 3 42
Eastern Grey Kangaroo 793 29152
Eastern Rosella 5 90
Emu 37 538
Galah 29 1275
Great cormorant 2 22
Grey butcherbird 2 30
Grey teal 3 140
Grey-headed flying fox 1 1000
Laughing Kookaburra 3 30
Little black cormorant 2 22
Little Corella 37 2457
Little Pied cormorant 2 22
Little Raven 7 195
Long billed corella 15 1160
Mallee Ringneck 3 15
Maned duck 94 3393
Masked lapwing 7 185
Musk Lorrikeet 39 2430
Noisy Friarbird 12 365
Pacific Black Duck 8 358
Pacific Heron 1 2
Pied Carrawong 22 640
Purple Swamphen 3 25
Rainbow Lorrikeet 20 910
Red Wattlebird 10 295
Red necked Wallaby 13 213
Satin Bowerbird 5 85
Silver Gull 38 10140
Silver Eye 13 380
Sulphur Crested Cockatoo 28 1098
Swamp Wallaby 128 2239
Tiger Snake 1 10
Welcome Swallow 2 11
Western Grey Kangaroo 56 1162
Yellow-tailed black-cockatoo 1 30
Background What is an ATCW Permit? An ATCW is a permit issued by DSE which allows the killing of native animals.
• Who can obtain an ATCW?
• Anyone can obtain an ATCW.
• What cost is involved to an applicant for an ATCW?
• There is absolutely no cost to the applicant but the cost to the Victorian tax payer is approximately $275 per application.
• If this cost were applied to each application it would drastically cut the number of ATCW’s issued.
What DSE say in their ‘Managing Wildlife’ – Fact sheet 1

A landowner or manager identifies a conflict with wildlife on their land which cannot be resolved by non- lethal techniques.
DSE do not give any education to landholder with regard to non-lethal methods unless a landowner specifically asks for help. Education about wildlife should be a priority with DSE and it is not.

The applicant completes the form by specifying the wildlife species causing the problem, number of individuals involved, non-lethal methods used, the proposed control method (scare only or destroy) and submits the application to DSE.

DSE take the word of landholders about the number of animals causing problems. Landholders are not required to validate either numbers of problem animals or the perceived damage.

In most cases, a DSE Officer inspects the property to determine the validity of the application.

In most cases this does not occur. By their own admission DSE do not have enough Officers to carry out inspections to validate claims made by landholders or undertake any follow-up monitoring. When a DSE Officer does go to a property to make an inspection, there is no requirement that numbers of animals sighted be validated by either photographs or video. In the case of macropods, when a DSE Officer sights and counts the number of ‘pest animals’ the number counted will be more than doubled as it is presumed that if they see 100, there will be 250 in the area, because there are those which they can’t see hiding in woodland.
How are ATCW applications assessed?

All ATCW applications are considered on a case by case basis and generally involve an on-ground inspection of the problem (unless the issuing Officer has firsthand knowledge of the property)

On ground inspections are extremely rare due to the lack of DSE Officers available to undertake inspections. Firsthand knowledge usually means a permit has been issued before but no inspection is carried out to confirm that the problem remains.

ATCW’s are only issued where there is a demonstrable need to control numbers and following consideration of: Severity of the problem, other measures available to control the problem, past management of the problem.

The ATCW system provides a structured and controlled way of responding to problems in a humane and sustainable manner. Without this system, it is likely that people experiencing damage would take matters into their own hands.

The ACTW system does not provide a structured and controlled way of responding to perceived problems and the very act of killing animals is neither ethical nor humane.

How is animal welfare insured?

All authorisations include strict conditions to ensure that animals are controlled in a humane manner. An ATCW does not confer any right to use poison and does not absolve the holder of any legal obligation under any other legislation, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986.

The strict conditions mentioned here consist of the type of gun which is to be used, the type of bullet and a diagram of where a shot should be placed in the case of Macropods and Wombats.

Animals which are not cleanly shot and are injured are not chased up by the landholder or the agent and put out of their misery; they are left to die agonising deaths which sometimes takes days. There is no ‘Prevention of Cruelty’.

DSE do not have any methods in place where records are kept of how many animals were actually killed, how many were injured and not found. There is no requirement by DSE for the holder of an ATCW to report these figures which means the permit holder could kill less than the permit allows or more likely, many more than the permit allows. It could be a bottomless pit.

There is also no requirement in the case of Macropods and Wombats to find any young at foot and no requirement for any in-pouch young to be humanly killed.

DSE do not have any system in place by which they test the competency of the person who is to do the shooting. The only requirement when applying for an ATCW is a current gun license number so anyone with a current license can shoot wildlife no matter how inexperienced.

Are ATCW’s Monitored?

DSE staff randomly inspects a number of ATCW’s each year.

Destruction of protected wildlife without an appropriate authorisation, or breaching the conditions of an ATCW is a serious offence and will most likely result in prosecution. There are penalties of more than $5,000 for illegally destroying protected wildlife and or up to 6 months imprisonment.

Given the lack of DSE Officers, it is reasonable to conclude that ‘random inspections’ are not carried out and there is no available evidence that any of the mentioned penalties have ever been applied.
It is also interesting to note that DSE does not have a central electronic document management system that allows for searches of ATCW’s when a request is made under Freedom of Information. There are only two DSE Officers with knowledge and understanding of the documents whereabouts who are able to assist the FOI unit. It would appear that all documents relating to the issuing of ATCW’s are kept at the regional office where they were issued. This appears to indicate, that in the eyes of DSE, the killing of Victorian wildlife is not important enough to keep centralised records.

Areas where negligence of duty are occurring

• DSE by their own admission do not have enough Officers to undertake all their duties which are outlined in their ‘Fact Sheet 1 – Authority To Control Wildlife’
• There is no system in place to prevent cruelty to animals killed under an ATCW.
• There is no system in place by which counting of ‘pest animals’ can be validated.
• There is no system in place which requires the holder of an ATCW to report and validate the number of animals killed.
• There is no system in place where the firearm competency of the applicant is tested.
• If DSE cannot comply with their own regulations with regard to the issuing of ATCW’s then they should cease issuing them until such time as they can competently oversee, monitor, validate and justify the issuing of these permits.

Parliament of Victoria

Parliament makes laws and holds the Government to account for its policies, actions and spending. Among the functions of the Parliament are;

• Representing the people
• Holding the Government to account for its policies and actions
Under the Victorian Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act 2003 Act number 2/2003 Part 2 – Amendment of the Constitution Act 1975
Page 12 – 16A ‘the principal of government mandate’
(b) The Government’s general mandate – to govern for and behalf of the people of Victoria

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Overview:

DSE believes they assist in delivering the governments vision to position Victoria as a world leader in sustainability; the department employs 2,700 staff, working in 90 different locations across the state, with annual funding of around $1 billion.

Department of Sustainability and Environment Liability in Negligence Mark Aronson November 2009
According to ‘Public Administration Act 2004

Government activities are usually judged by the ‘ordinary’ law of negligence, and one can often find good reasons for the exceptions. It is submitted, however, that it is never a good reason to deny a duty of care simply because the defendant is the Government, or because it is a statutory authority, or because it has statutory powers or statutory duties.

Perhaps, therefore a better approach would be to stop asking what special rules should apply to Government or even to Governmental actions. It might be better to focus more directly on the judicial role in a negligence case and ask what factors might be considered too difficult for the courts or inappropriate for their resolution according to a negligence standard, regardless of whether the defendant is a Government body or its action a Governmental function...it is difficult to understand what possessed the parliaments to grant Government entities generic permissions to be careless, or careless to a degree not permissible to their private sector analogues.

Ref. Government Liabilities in Negligence – Mark Aronson November 2009 ‘Public Administration Act 2004

7 Public sector values
(a) Responsiveness
(ii) providing high quality services to the Victorian community; and
(iii) identifying and promoting best practice;

(b) Integrity
(v) striving to earn and sustain public trust of a high level;

3 Objects
(ii) provides effective, efficient and integrated service delivery;
(iii) is accountable for its performance.

Public Administration Act 2004 – Section 7

Public sector values
(1) The following are some of the public sector values –
(a) Responsiveness – public officials should demonstrate responsiveness by -
(ii) providing high quality services to the Victorian Community; and
(iii) identifying and promoting best practice;

(b) integrity – public officials should demonstrate integrity by -
(v) striving to earn and sustain public trust at a high level

Part 2

Failures of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the Act) is the primary Victorian legislation providing for conservation of threatened species and ecological communities. Since the Act was passed in 1988, 653 plant and animal species, communities and threatening processes have been listed.

The primary aim of the FFG Act is to guarantee that all taxa of Victoria’s flora and fauna can survive, flourish and retain their potential for evolutionary development in the wild, and to ensure that the genetic diversity of flora and fauna is maintained.

The full range of ‘management processes’ and ‘conservation and control measures’ available in the Act has not been used. Various management processes and conservation and control measures available to conserve and protect flora and fauna are not being used, largely because of their perceived complexity and the difficulty of administering these provisions.

The gap between listed items and items with action statements continues to widen.

The lack of baseline data and outcome or output performance measures means it is not possible to conclude whether the Act has achieved its primary objectives.

The available data, which is patchy, indicates that it has not.

Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Recommendations by the Attorney General – 2009

The department should:

-review the internal timeframes it sets for listing, against the resources it applies and the processes it adopts, to confirm they are realistic

The only critical habitat determination made was subsequently revoked at the time of his report; and no interim conservation orders have been issued.[3]

Action statements are the primary tools in the Act being used to protect and conserve threatened flora and fauna. However, the effort directed to listing threatened species and processes has not been matched by effort to develop action statements, to monitor the implementation of actions, or assess their effectiveness.

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act requires Action Statements to be completed for each listing. An Action Statement sets out management prescriptions to protect endangered species. An Action Statement must be completed 'as soon as possible' after listing.

-continue to build its knowledge-base on threatened species, causes of their decline and how best to mitigate threats to them; and expedite the transfer of information held on manual files to the ABC system formalise its collaboration on conservation activity with the Federal Government and seek a joint agreement to eliminate duplication in the listing process (Recommendation 4.1).

The department should:

-assess the resources it applies to developing, monitoring and reviewing action statements and establish a prioritised action plan to address the backlog of listed items with no action statements

Proper utilization of the conservation measures available in the present FFG Act would make a real difference to biodiversity conservation in Victoria.

The action statements must set out what has been done to conserve and manage that taxon or community or process and what is intended to be done and may include information on what needs to be done.

The failure to complete Action Statements renders the RFA (Regional Forest Agreement) Reserve System inadequate for the protection of endangered species due to lack of information and management strategies.

The CAR (Comprehensive Adequate Representative) reserve system on paper is meant to protect all biodiversity values in the Otways from logging practices based on best scientific information. However if the impact logging has on other forest values is not done then decreased levels of protection are what occur. [1]

An analysis by lawyers at the Environment Defenders Office (EDO) found that of 599 threatened plant and animal species listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, only 270 have an action statement to manage their conservation as legally required.[2]

Brendan Sydes, Chief Executive Officer and lawyer at the EDO found that Action Statements have still not been prepared for 374 of the 675 species, communities and processes listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, despite the clear legal obligation to do so. In the past year, only one draft statement has been released. “At this rate, it will take the Government decades to fulfil their obligations,” said Mr Sydes. [3]

-review the efficacy of conservation and protection tools available under the Act

Imposition of yet another environmental impact assessment option, such as the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, through the state significant planning process adds to the confusion and complexity, and should be resisted. In the view of the EDO, the lack of political and Departmental will to fully implement and enforce the FFG Act, combined with a lack of resources provided to DSE for implementation of the Act has resulted in its weak implementation. [4]

The Native forest timber industry is exempt from complying with legislation which is in place to protect flora species listed in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

The existence of this Order for exemption is an admission that logging practices in State Forest threaten and destroy listed flora in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.[5]

East Gippsland is now a refuge for many of Eastern Victoria’s rare and threatened forest species. To be responsible and responsive about reversing the decline in number and populations of threatened species, the zoning system must now strongly favour protection of their remaining habitat.

Under the FFG Act, action statements are required to set out "what has to be done to conserve and manage (a threatened) taxon or community." The action statements contain short-term, interim, objectives and actions as well as longer term objectives and actions to ensure the species return to a secure conservation status. To the extent that re-zoning will result in the longer term actions and objectives of the action statements for the relevant species not being implemented and achieved, the re-zoning could result in a failure to meet legal obligations that arise under the FFG Act.

For the Powerful Owl, the long term objective of the FFG action statement is:

“...to increase population numbers in potentially suitable areas, where owls are now scarce by maintaining and restoring habitat for species across all land tenures to return it to a secure conservation status in the wild.”

Changes to the zoning are inconsistent with the long term objective of this statement. [6]

The Wildlife Act and the FFG Act should be at least partially amalgamated so that the FFG Act includes prohibitions on taking or destroying all listed flora and fauna.

Victoria’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 has objectives to ensure “Victoria’s native flora and fauna can survive, flourish, and retain their potential for evolutionary development”. Now the integrity of this Act is under threat. Perversely DSE’s Code of Practice argues that deliberate burning of bushland and forest habitat will help Victoria’s native flora and fauna to survive, flourish, and retain their potential for evolutionary development. No document exists to zoologically prove that native fauna will suffer such negative consequences if it does not have a bushfire range through its habitat. As a result, the Code of Practice implies that bushfire is ok for all Victorian bushland and forests – DSE conveniently convinces itself that the urgent moral imperative for DSE to suppress bushfires is extinguished. So now it lights more fires than it puts out. The ability for forest fauna to recover is therefore being hampered by further prescribed burning, and recovery is also hampered by reduced fecundity caused by a decade of drought, and for the owls, low prey population densities.’ [7]

-assess whether the listing process is the most effective and efficient means of protecting species and communities

The Spot-Tailed Quoll is now classified as 'Vulnerable' under the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1995, and has recently been reclassified to 'Endangered' under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. When the Quoll was first listed for protection under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (nomination 146), logging practices that cause habitat fragmentation were cited as a major threat.

The first Tiger Quoll Action Statement has no prescriptions to protect Quolls from logging practices despite the primary Quoll habitat being within forest available for logging. The failure to recognise the potential for forestry operations in State Forest to create fragmentation is a serious issue.[8]

The deliberate inaction and disregard of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act by the government, coupled with an assumption that no one would ever have the funds to take them to court, proved to be not enough to protect the historical over-logging operations of the hooligan industry. [9]

Offences for the protection of fauna – there are no provisions for the protection of listed fauna. Offences in relation to fauna are contained in a separate piece of legislation, namely, the Wildlife Act 1975 (Vic). [10]

The offences in the FFG Act should apply to all listed species, not just flora and fish. The defence available to owners and lessees of private land should be removed. The FFG Act should also prohibit the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of habitat of listed species. Or at the very least, the FFG Act should prohibit the destruction of the "residence" of a listed species (e.g. the hollow, nest, or other dwelling place), similar to the new Canadian legislation, the Species At Risk Act 2002.

Currently there are exemptions under the FFG Act for logging, in the form of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (Forest Produce Harvesting) Order 1988. These exemptions should be removed. [11]

Sambar Deer are confusingly listed as 'environmentally threatening' under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, yet protected as a game species under the Wildlife Act. That makes no sense, and has led to gross inaction on a rapidly escalating problem. [12]

A number of species listed under Victoria’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (FFG Act) and browsed by Sambar were recognised by Victoria’s Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC 2007) as threatened by Sambar.

The Mountain Ash forests of the Central Highlands are home to several threatened and endangered species, for example, the endangered Leadbeater’s Possum, which is Victoria’s faunal emblem. Endemic to the Yarra tributaries, the population of the Leadbeater’s Possum is currently in decline as a result of inadequate habitat.

T he protective provisions of the FFG Act are excluded where logging is conducted in areas containing flora listed as threatened under the FFG Act. The Flora and Fauna Guarantee (Forest Produce Harvesting) Order 1998 authorises the taking of protected flora from State forests, where such taking is the result of logging. However, a similar exclusion in areas of threatened
Fauna does not exist. Therefore, the protection afforded by the FFG Act remains intact and applies to logging operations conducted in the threatened species habitat in the Yarra tributaries. [13]

Recommendations:

Logging in habitat areas must be listed as a potentially threatening process under The Act.

Logging management must be reviewed in order to develop sustainable rates of logging, if logging is to continue. (ibid)

VicForests won on their contest that they can log FFG recognised habitat for the endangered Leadbeater's Possum - Victoria's faunal emblem. This has meant the survival of the species cannot be 'guaranteed' under the FFG Act. [14]

The proposed variation to the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 will allow the Secretary of the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) to override a Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement (Action Statement) for any given forest coupe. In other words, it empowers the Secretary to clear threatened species habitat that would otherwise have been protected.

This effectively takes the only readily enforceable part of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic) (FFG Act) and allows the Secretary to make it unenforceable. [15]

-develop a suite of output efficiency and outcome effectiveness measures to monitor and assess its conservation efforts (Recommendation 5.1).

The impacts of climate change, fire, weed and feral animals and logging, coupled with changing demographics and community attitudes to forest management, all point to the need for a major, independent assessment and overhaul of current logging arrangements.
(Australian Conservation Foundation - East Gippsland)

DSE has provided no evidence to suggest that any comprehensive surveys have taken place to ensure that the species are being adequately monitored and protected as per legislative requirements in their action statements and the FFG Act.

In June of this year, 10 of the 11 staff who make up the south-west biodiversity team will not have their contracts renewed, with similar cuts expected in other regions of the State. Many species of flora and fauna in south-west Victoria are on the brink of extinction and require urgent proactive management. The government’s dismissal of threatened species officers will ensure that next to nothing is being done to save these species, thus totally ignoring its legal requirements under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. [16]

The implications of this move are alarming. Less DSE officers and staff will further compromise the effectiveness of the enormous and important task of protection biodiversity.

Urban sprawl is eating into natural areas and green wedges, and impacting on some of the most endangered habitats and species in Victoria. A significant population of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus), a nationally threatened species, still persists in south-eastern Melbourne in the cities of Casey and Cardinia. The Southern Brown Bandicoot is listed as ‘endangered’ under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. In Victoria, Southern Brown Bandicoots are listed as ‘threatened’ under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. [17]

About 5000ha of Victoria's last remaining grassland habitats will be cleared in the growth corridors, approximately 2600ha of grassland will be retained in the urban growth areas and the rest will be offset into two large 15,000ha grassland reserves outside the growth areas.

In a world of finite resources with unchecked economic and population growth, some form of overshoot and collapse is inevitable.

Victoria could bear the brunt of a climate change front that would see almost a third of animal species wiped out in less than 60 years.

By 2070, Victoria could be rendered unrecognisable as the continent heats up and rainfall patterns change, according to a drastic new report by the CSIRO. Victorian animal species already threatened by climate change include the mountain pygmy possum, the helmeted honeyeater, and pink-tailed legless lizard.

One of the report's authors, Dr Michael Dunlop said ecosystems such as the eucalyptus forests to Melbourne's north could disappear and snowfall in Victoria's alpine regions become more sparse, and the Mallee become increasingly thirsty. It's easy to blame climate change as if it were indistinct from human actions, and with loss and degradation of habitats, compromising management of flora and fauna, and loosening policies that protect native animals, will likely cause their demise. [18]

Of the 91 species of non-marine mammals known to have inhabited Victoria since European settlement, 19 are now extinct in the state, and five of these are now totally extinct. Many other species survive with much diminished populations. For example, the native grassland complexes of lowland Victoria are now among the most endangered ecological communities in Australia, there being less than 2% left of the pre-1750 area of thousands of square kilometres. [19]

While there is legislation to protect native vegetation, or their offsets, it's assumed that wildlife will adapt to smaller, degraded and diminishing habitats.

State of the Environment 2011 (SoE 2011)
Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Human population growth is a potential cause of environmental change worldwide, including Australia, even without considering the impact of changes on living standards or resource use per capita. The largest factor influencing population growth over the past decade has been net overseas migration rather than natural increase, although less so than over previous decades. Direct impact are the extension of the urban growth boundary, land clearing for agriculture, feral animals, proposed invasion of green wedges for developments – and also in national parks.

18 species are listed as extinct

The Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna lists 41 extant species compared with 34 listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. [20]

The perception that kangaroos are a renewable resource, coupled with the labelling of these native animals as pests, has resulted in the largest slaughter of land-based wildlife on the planet.

In the past 20 years, 90 million kangaroos and wallabies have been lawfully killed for commercial purposes. Kangaroos are often found with missing limbs or jaws or suffering from gaping wounds due to the difficulty of the shot. The writer concludes:”It is irresponsible to commercialise the hunting of kangaroos, given these serious concerns of contamination and animal cruelty”.[21]
Although kangaroo and wallabies are not considered endangered or threatened, there is a moral dimension of protecting wildlife from profits, and being cruelly plundered. All wildlife should be protected from commercial activities.

( [1]Otway Ranges Environmental Network – West RFA reserve system
http://www.oren.org.au/issues/forestmanag/rfa/rfacar.htm)

([2]The Age – Threatened species still missing out May 9 2012)

([3]Report finds Victorian Government ignoring key environmental laws- EDO online http://www.edovic.org.au/media-release/report-finds-victorian-government-ignoring-key-environmental-laws 5 July 2012)

([4] VCEC Inquiry into Victoria’s Regulatory Framework Issues Paper prepared by
Environment Defenders Office (Victoria) Ltd 24 September 2010)
([5]Otway Ranges environment Network – The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act )http://www.oren.org.au/issues/forestmanag/ffgact.htm
([6]Australian Conservation Foundation Environment East Gippsland - Gippsland Environment Group - The Wilderness Society Victoria - Victorian National Parks Association Submission to East Gippsland Forest Management Zone Amendments September 2010 )
([7]The Habitat Advocate A HABITAT CONSERVATION WEBSITE ‘State Arson’, ‘State Logging’ wiping out owls
http://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/?tag=flora-and-fauna-guarantee-act)
([8] Environment East Gippsland - Baillieu to protect loggers above threatened species
http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/?q=node/587)
([9] ibid)
([10] REVIEW OF THE FLORA AND FAUNA GUARANTEE ACT 1988 (VIC) Lawyers for Forests Nov 2002)
[11] ibid
([12] Victorian National Parks Association – Feral horses and deer in the Alps)
([13] LOGGING IN MELBOURNE’S WATER CATCHMENTS: the yarra tributaries: HANNAH NICHOLS Monash University Victorian Parliamentary Internship Report June 2008)
([14] http://www.myenvironment.net.au/index.php/me/Work/Legal/Save-Sylvia-Appeal/What-it-s-all-about)
([15] EDO - EDO Briefing Paper Forestry Code changes endanger threatened species 30 Nov 2011)
([16] The backwards spiral continues - Baillieu Government axes threatened species officers http://www.iffa.org.au/backwards-spiral-continues-baillieu-government-axes-threatened-species-officersIndigenous Flora and Fauna Association)
[17] VPNA: Submission guide - threatened species and urban sprawl
http://vnpa.org.au/page/nature-conservation/take-action/submission-guide-_-threatened-species-and-urban-sprawl
([18] http://www.news.com.au/national/climate-change-could-see-a-third-of-victorias-animal-species-extinct-in-60-years/story-fndo4cq1-1226476070373)
([19] http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/biodiversity/victorias-biodiversity-strategy-1997/sustaining-our-living-wealth/the-challenge-today)
[20] SOE report 2011- http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/report/biodiversity/2-4-plant-and-animal-species.html
[21]Victoria's cull plan bad for health: roos and ours- http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/victorias-cull-plan-bad-for-health-roos-and-ours-20120918-263lq.html#ixzz26oBkQDkf

Respectfully Submitted by the Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc

September 24, 2012

Maryland Wilson

President

Case of DSE Negligence compiled by Members of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc:

Maryland Wilson - President
Vivienne Ortega - Vice President
Ciewen (Val) Hickey - Research
Rheya Linden - Research
Sheila Newman - Sociological Land Use Planner

Kangaroo may become a commercial Victorian venture

John Kelly, executive officer of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, is a persistent predator of kangaroos, for profits from their meat and skins, and is honing in on his prey.

Australia's kangaroo meat industry could soon expand into Victoria, which is the only state that does not allow the commercial harvest of kangaroos. The idea was bandied around in the 1980s, and again in 2002, but due to intensive agriculture and land clearing, the plan was shelved due to insufficient kangaroo numbers.

The Victorian government is looking at what regulatory changes would be needed to turn the "culling" of kangaroos into a commercial harvest. Up to 30,000 kangaroo carcasses are "wasted" because they are killed by farmers, due to liberal interpretation of what "pest" impacts are, and the easy gain of the DSE Authority to Control Wildlife permits.

Conveniently, this comes as the kangaroo meat industry hopes to reopen its biggest traditional market for roo meat - Russia - a country that sensibly banned the imports due to hygiene concerns.

This is an introduction to commercial killing by stealth, and kangaroos are meant to obligingly increase their breeding rates, size, range, joey survival rates, to help Victoria's ailing economy, give us more meat choices, and inflate the size of Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia's bank account. It's cruel, predatory, un-Australian and unsustainable.

There needs to be an inquiry to why so many permits to "control" (ie kill) wildlife are liberally distributed to land-holders by the DSE.

Sign the PETITION

Sign the PETITION

In her submission to the Victorian State Department of Planning and Community Services, Julianne Bell, Secretary of Protectors of Public Lands, quoting Professor Michael Buxton of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) shows how the proposed changes to Victoria's urban planning laws will destroy the quality of life and sustainability of Melbourne.

Submission to Department of Planning and Community Services (DPCS) on Victoria's New Planning Zones

Introduction: I am writing on behalf of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., a coalition of 80 community, environmental and heritage groups dedicated to protecting and maintaining sites of environmental and heritage significance.

Here is a statement made by Professor Michael Buxton of RMIT covering the significance and the impact on Melbourne of the new zone proposals. He gave permission for me to quote him. I am then making a suggestion as to the need for a Parliamentary Inquiry by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Planning in order for there to be proper consultation with the public.

Significance of Review of Planning Zones: The Victorian government's proposed new planning zones are the most radical review of planning schemes in the history of Victorian planning. They will lead to fundamental changes in the way Melbourne operates, change the fabric of the city and its hinterland, and remove an extensive range of existing citizen rights. Every citizen will be affected.

The new zone proposals will:

• Replace the three existing residential zones with three new residential zones
• Replace the Business 1, 2 and 5 zones with a new Commercial 1 zone, and the Business 3 and 4 zones with a new Commercial 2 zone
• Extensively alter the Green Wedge zone, rural Conservation zone, Green Wedge A zone, Farming zone, Rural Activity zone and Rural Living zone
• Change the existing Mixed Use zone, Township zone and Low Density Residential zone
• Change the existing Industrial 1, 2 and 3 zones.

The government recently released the report of the Advisory Committee into the Victorian planning system and its response to this report. Neither this report nor the government response advocated the changes to zones now proposed. No other justification or strategic context has been provided for the radical changes to the statutory planning system. Clearly, the government worked extensively on its changes to zones in a secret parallel process while the public was diverted to a public process which proposed only moderate change.

Impact of New Planning Zones: The major impacts will be the introduction of extensive commercial uses into residential areas, the destruction of Melbourne's traditional strip retail centres, the dispersal of commercial activities to car based areas resulting in serious metropolitan wide traffic congestion, the de-facto removal of the urban growth boundary and the extension of a large number of urban related uses into green wedges. Resident rights of notification and objection will be seriously curtailed with many new uses allowed in these new zones without the need for permits.

In particular, the zones will:

• merge residential and commercial uses across urban zones, with an extension of commercial uses into residential areas and little difference between commercial and some industrial zones
• increase the price of commercial and rural land through the encouraging of land speculation
• lead to the growth of large numbers of out-of-centre car based commercial/retail developments including accommodation which will end the current functions of many strip retail centres and lead to substantial car use and increase road congestion across Melbourne
• increase the height of commercial/retail and mixed use developments.

The new zones constitute a largely deregulated land use planning system drawing from the reports and lobbying of market oriented bodies and development groups and growth focused government agencies. These zones, in effect, constitute unfair competition by attempting to allow a wide range of uses in many locations. Existing strip retail centres, for example, will have to compete against new retail development built on much cheaper land far from public transport; land traditionally used for agriculture and rural pursuits will become locations for urban related commercial development and accommodation facilities in unfair competition against higher priced urban land. The principle of unregulated markets also takes no account of their public economic, social and environmental impacts, for example, the impacts on congestion of dispersed commercial development and the associated costs in delays and road construction and maintenance.

The application of the zones and the use of schedules will be subject to ministerial approval. Councils may not be allowed to select zones they regard as appropriate to land in their municipalities.

The use of overlays and structure plans may not significantly reduce the impact of the zones. For example, the Heritage Overlay is increasingly ineffective in preventing development even under current zones, and the effects of structure plans depend on the content and the nature of their incorporation into planning schemes.

Melbourne will not be the same city if these new zones are approved even in a modified form.

Failure of the State Government to Consult Victorians Properly on New Planning Zones:

Here is my comment. This complex set of proposals concerning the new planning zones was sprung upon the public which was given only a month to comment. As commented above it appeared that the public was seriously misled as ..."Clearly, the government worked extensively on its changes to zones in a secret parallel process while the public was diverted to a public process which proposed only moderate change." A number of Councils held planning forums at which planning officers attempted to enlighten the public re detail of the changes. The public encountered difficulties when attempting to make submissions by the deadline last Friday when the DPCS computer crashed. The Planning Minister then gave the public an extension for a week. Our submissions will be referred to a small committee hand picked by the Minister. Members of the Committee cannot be said to be independent.

It is extraordinary that the Planning Minister did not refer the review which is of such great significance to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and Planning. This has not had an inquiry for the past month or so. Public submissions (to this Standing Committee) are put on the Parliamentary website and presentations to the Committee recorded in Hansard. As far as I am aware most members of the public regard this process as open and transparent where people are given a "fair go". Even if members of Parliament are split on Party lines they can write a group dissenting report. Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc recommends that a proper Parliamentary Inquiry be held into the new planning zones.

Julianne Bell
Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052

Mobile: 0408 022408

Email: jbell5 [ AT ] bigpond.com

The Government and opposition's population engineering continues to wreck havoc on democracy and land-tenure, affecting both private property and public lands, and impacting on established low-key local commerce. New proposed uses for the Green Wedge actually include saw-mills and display homes. The Flinders Community Association have begun issuing an information-packed alert for distribution to the local community detailing the damage that State Government changes to our Green Wedges can do to peoples' local natural, social and commercial environment, whilst removing their ability to defend what is theirs. Other communities may wish to take a similar democratic initiative before all our rights to self-government are swept away by unjust legislation to benefit developers. Note that these moves were begun by the previous Labor Government - which is hardly fighting them now. The incumbent government should be rolling back what Bracks and Brumby did, but instead, they are making things worse.MEETING IN FLINDERS COMMUNITY HALL 4 PM SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 15th 2012

Flinders Community Association warning

Minister Louise Asher of the State Government has already set in motion sweeping changes that threaten the National parks but further changes announced by Planning Minister Matthew Guy will also materially affect the character and ambience of the Mornington Peninsula and its towns and villages.

These changes, announced if fully implemented are far reaching and will affect all of us in some way.

This “one shoe fits all” approach to planning is considered by the FCA to be inappropriate – particularly after analysing how the changes would affect the Mornington Peninsula.

Some publicity has been given to aspects of the substantial changes announced by the Minister earlier this month. These have not involved prior consultation yet responses are sought from interested parties by September 21, this year.

The new approach to planning will impact on the future of the Green Wedge, on farming and on the Flinders township - while also putting pressure on the vital Urban Boundaries. In addition, commercial interests will be encouraged to invest in tourism ventures in the National Parks and Reserves.

Ironically, the stated objective of removing uncertainty about rules, policies and planning regulations to encourage greater investment will create further uncertainty, according to our shire planning department, which believes VCAT will be used more often for decision-making and we will have “planning by appeal”. In some cases landowners and developers will be given “as of right” permission to do anything they want without anyone knowing about it and leaving others with no right of appeal!

A couple of specific local examples would be that the hotel (opposed by all parties, local members and community groups) proposed a few years ago to be sited at the corner of Browns and Greens roads beside the Mornington Peninsula National Park would just be given the go-ahead without even needing to pretend it was in any way rural or interested in environmental studies. A development like T’Gallant, the restaurant, would not have to be heard over the number of customers it could service as the limit of 150 patrons is to be scrapped, as will the requirement of 40 hectares site minimum in the Green Wedge needed before building group accommodation. Medical centres, places of assembly and primary and secondary schools are all listed as acceptable for the Green Wedge etc. etc.

What the Amendment Proposes

- Green Wedge zone provisions are to be liberalized to increase the range of agricultural uses allowed without a permit. These include Primary produce sales (for produce grown on the land) and Rural Industry (other than an Abattoir and Sawmill and limited floor area to 200m2) but not within 100m of a dwelling in separate ownership and sale area less than 50 sq m.

Comment: Not requiring a permit means people have the 'as of right' means to do anything they want without having to advertise their intentions so it could mean developments could spring up before anyone knows anything about it and with no right of appeal. The damage would be irreversible. In the interest of conserving landscape and amenity, the siting and design of new buildings such as Rural store demands a permit process. Compliance supervision will need to increase to ensure retail activities sources product only from the property. Near-by urban Industrial zones can readily accommodate rural service industry.

- The list of Green Wedge zone uses subject to permit are to be widened to include Abattoir, Medical centre, Primary school, Sawmill, and Secondary school. Permits can be sought for many other uses including those previously prohibited such as Display home, and Service station, Place of assembly including Amusement parlor, Cinema, Drive-in-theatre, Library and Nightclub

Comment: These permits may not have to be advertised and can be purely at Council's discretion. There are no mandatory provisions that apply. These uses are essentially urban uses and should be located close to the urban population with access to the necessary utility services. Conflicts with farming activities producing smells, dust, noise, waste discharge etc are likely.

- Mandatory conditions are to be deleted relating to the establishment of Function Centre, Group Accommodation, R& D Centre and Research centre, Residential building, Restaurant in conjunction with agriculture etc.

Comment: Large cabin/camping parks, Function centres, and Restaurants etc and could be established on relatively small sites unrelated to agricultural activity. The main tourist routes could become lined with an uninterrupted ribbon of retail activities and restaurants.

Retention of conditions on lot size, area of use, number of patrons, and use “in conjunction with agriculture” etc is necessary to ensure that these uses do not become intrusive in the landscape. Conserving landscape and amenity is critical to maintaining the attraction of the Mornington Peninsula as a key recreation and tourist destination.

- Mandatory restriction on further subdivision in the Green Wedge zone is removed leaving management and control to Council policy.

Comment: Since 1975 the planning scheme has sought to limit the fragmentation of the farming areas from subdivision. Unless relatively strict controls over further subdivision are implemented, adequate sites for agriculture will be difficult to obtain and the further detriment to Peninsula landscapes from closer settlement will occur.

- Three new residential zones (Residential Growth, General Residential, Neighbourhood Residential) are to replace the current five Residential zones. - These will have more guidelines and multiple schedules. ResCode will stay in place as will control on building heights and some local policies (DDO).

Comment: The proposal to indicate growth/change expectations for residential zones could have merit but how will this translate to Flinders? Maintenance of existing village character is essential using existing DDO’s and policies but we will have to fight hard to ensure they remain in place. Growth should be limited to infill development within the Urban Growth Boundary.

- Shops, Offices, Cafés, Medical, Centres etc are to be allowed in these Residential zones without need for a permit within 100 metres of a Commercial zone on the same road frontage.

Comment: In Flinders, there is already an over-supply of retail floor space. The commercial frontage will be doubled under the Amendment. This 'as of right' process gives no opportunity for community review or participation in a permit process for any new development.

- Two new Commercial Zones C1 and C2 replace the 5 existing Business zones, encouraging combined business, retail and office activities. Areas in the existing Business zones 3 and 4 (used for offices, service industry and bulky household goods retailing) will now allow supermarkets and shops to establish.

Comment: Shopping functions will be spread over a wider area and may result in the death of shopping activity in many of the main business centres by encouraging new out of centre developments.

- Industrial zones are to be changed to remove limits on size of offices and allow supermarkets up to 2000sqm and some shops up to 500sqm.in area.

Comment: Industrial activities will be disadvantaged by intrusion of new shopping uses, which would be better placed in the established commercial activity centres.

What can you do?

It is vital we all understand the damage that can be done under these changes. This could irrevocably change the Peninsula as we know it – and its towns and villages. Surely this is the whole reason why tourists come here, to see something that's different not something they have just come from. Do we want the Peninsula to end up just like the Gold Coast in Queensland or the central coast of NSW? Do we want the Great Ocean Road and Wilsons Promontory to also fall under the developers hammer? Tourists want more than just a flash hotel to stay in, another fancy restaurant, another theme park. More and more they want to experience nature, history, the way things work like farming, wine making, cheese making, wildlife reserves.

If you are concerned …

If you are sufficiently concerned by all of this go to the FCA webpage at www.flindersvillage.com.auand click on the various links that give you the full detail of the Government's intentions. You can then send a submission (a letter) to the Government giving your opinions and reasons why to

Mr. P. Allen
Executive Director Planning Systems
Dept. of Planning and Community Development
GPO Box 2392
Melbourne. 3001

Meeting in Flinders

You can also come to an FCA meeting at the Flinders Community Hall at 4pm on Saturday September 15th where the FCA will be seeking approval to make a submission under the FCA banner. But, you should also send yours; the more the better.

Another thing you can do is spread the word. Only the voice of the community can persuade the Government to think twice.

Peter Hall
President.
August 2012

On the ABC News radio this morning (9 Sept 2012) we heard that private coal companies are demanding compensation for carbon trading costs from the Victorian Government and apparently this is being taken seriously!

All the brown coal stations in Victoria belonged to the State electricity Commission of Victoria until 1994 when they were privatised by Jeff Kennett.
Now the current government is saying that it may have to compensate brown coal producers for their not being able to use it because it is too polluting and will be too costly under the carbon trading system.

Do we require further proof of how corrupt and unproductive privatisation is?
What gives when a government not only sells off our assets but then somehow agrees to retain liability for business risks?

You would have thought that the private corporations would have assumed responsibility for the debt.
They have profited from the privatisation over the years and are now crying poor and demanding compensation!
How about making the parliamentarians who agreed to selling off these assets personally financially responsible for any such compensation?

We've known of the dangers of coal since the 18th century. Our leaders should be held responsible for getting us into this mess.

The Growling Grass Frog, one of the largest frog species in Australia, was previously widespread across Victoria. They are now endangered. Southern Brown Bandicoots once occurred commonly in the wider Frankston area (pre-1970s). They have rapidly declined and are now restricted to isolated remnant habitat patches. They have little chance of long term survival against the economic benefits of population growth. Without robust ecosystems, with each natural species contributing its part to the web of life, we end in a barren, artificial and sterile, wastelands. (First posted
Posted July 13th, 2012; Reposted July 15, 2012.)

The Growling Grass Frog, one of the largest frog species in Australia, was previously widespread across Victoria. They were once so abundant In Victoria that they were used for dissections in universities and to feed the snakes at the Melbourne Zoo.

The now endangered Growling Grass Frog were once so common around parts of Melbourne that they were the only frogs people saw.

Worldwide, amphibian have declined and become extinct at a greater rate over the past fifty years than birds, reptiles and mammals. Australia alone has seen the extinction of eight frog species in recent decades.  At least 27% of the 219 Australian frog species are threatened with extinction.

Wildlife species cannot be “saved” in the long term by protecting them solely in captivity in zoos or small reserves. Without the existence of sustainable wild populations interacting with their environment, and evolving, each species will end up hopelessly inbred, and eventually doomed to extinction. Apart from high quality wetlands, they need grassland habitat for foraging, dispersal and shelter, and overwintering sites. 

An anthropocentric colonial concept assumes that "vacant" land is a wasted resource unless there is concrete, lawns, landfill, infrastructure and housing on it. 

The framework to protect our native species, even endangered ones, can easily be "revised" and made impotent against the lucrative economic momentum of the property development industry.

The expansion of the urban boundary is not really urban planning but a caving into market forces and the greed for growth.   

Native species are victims of relentless government efforts to increase the size of our economy. However, each species, even humble native frogs, have intrinsic value and a role to play in maintaining our shared ecological foundation.

Protecting Marvellous Melbourne

Part of the problem of protecting Melbourne's "marvelous" status is that Melbourne's population continues to grow.  Those governing and making decisions on planning assume the adage that "growth is good".  Population growth has become a synonym for economic-growth.

We are outstripping our ability to provide for the demands of our swelling population.  This is a time of job losses, and a decline in our once vibrant manufacturing base.   An economy that relies on housing inevitably comes hits the limits of growth with the inability of being able to fund infrastructure, especially for the outer growth suburbs. 

We are being strangled by an economy built for failure. The short-term benefits of land taxes, cash flows and stamp duty etc fail to cover the long term costs of urban expansion. 

The goal should be to grow the economy until the costs are higher than the benefits.   At this stage we need wisdom, and the political willpower to stop growing.   Our growth is now uneconomic, counterproductive and destructive.

City planning has become synonymous to the greed for growth at all costs. 

Protection for species being wound backwards

Protections for key threatened species in areas added to Victoria's urban growth boundaries by the Baillieu government have been wound back under yet to be released biodiversity plans.
Under the revised plans — which still need approval by the Commonwealth — proposals for wildlife corridors for rare bandicoots have been scrapped and buffer zones for threatened frogs reduced.

The Southern Brown Bandicoot, which is listed as threatened in Victoria, would have set up corridors for the species to move between habitats in Melbourne's south-east, will be re-written by the end of the year – no doubt watered-down to make more ease for developers.

Southeast Melbourne and the Westernport region are home to some of the few remaining populations of Victoria's endangered Southern Brown Bandicoots outside of national parks.

The proposed buffer zones around waterways and wetlands to protect the Growling Frog populations will also be reassessed and weakened. It's an effort to make green wedges and conservation corridors more rubbery and eventually non-existent.

According to the VPNA media release 12 June, Obviously the Victorian Government has been captured by developers and is failing to take into account long-term conservation and community needs.

Prescriptions for strategic assessment

On 16 April 2010,  the federal environment minister approved several prescriptions for ecological communities and threatened species associated with the Melbourne strategic assessment. These prescriptions specify requirements for protection of nationally protected matters that must be followed in preparing precinct structure plans and in undertaking individual developments.

The expansion of Melbourne's urban growth boundary will also include the clearing of critically endangered grassland and woodlands, as well as the establishment of large grassland reserves west of the city and 200m wildlife corridors on each side of creeks.

Our slow-evolving species need to adapt to more disturbances, smaller fragments, narrower gene pools and thinner remnant habitats - what the developers and our State government condescends to “save” for them.

Southern Brown Bandicoots once occurred commonly in the wider Frankston area (pre-1970s). They have rapidly declined and are now restricted to isolated remnant habitat patches. Presently there are only two known populations within 15 km of the Pines Flora Fauna Reserve, namely the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne (RBGC) and at Quail Island in Western Port Bay. The population at RBGC is the only population in the greater Melbourne area large enough and managed appropriately to be considered secure. It's the thin-edge of the knife!

Nationally threatened species such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot, Growling Grass Frog and the critically endangered Golden Sun Moth should be protected before final urban growth plans are released. But this hasn't happened as yet! Instead of green landscapes and green policies, they are being based on greed.

"Furry friendly" Peninsula Link?

Peninsula Link's builders are spending $20 million on eco-friendly initiatives including a "furry freeway" for endangered wildlife. A 30m-wide underpass will allow animals including the protected southern brown bandicoot to cross below the freeway. Picketers were attempting to save native bushland from being cleared until the appeal was heard and were keeping a 24-hour vigil at the Frankston South Westerfield property, a pristine pre-settlement biodiversity hot-spot. Bulldozers razed the area anyway, and the “furry freeway” for endangered wildlife is simply tokenism. Property prices in the Peninsula are expected to surge.

Green wedge backlash

Coalition co-ordinator Rosemary West said the inclusion of a Cranbourne South egg farm within the urban growth area could rebound on the government at the next election. Planning Minister Matthew Guy announced the decision to rezone the 104-hectare Brompton Lodge egg farm in June this year following a logical inclusions review. The review committee concluded it was not high-quality agricultural land and the egg farm was not viable in the long term. What is “viable in the long term” now? Nothing in the way of “progress” and urban sprawl!

It also recommended incorporating the adjoining Ranfurlie Golf Course within the urban growth area. Coalition co-ordinator Rosemary West said the rezoning was very poor planning, with Brompton Lodge surrounded by green wedge on two of three sides.

It's beautiful land, it's in the path of a proposed southern brown bandicoot corridor between the Royal Botanic Gardens at Cranbourne and The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve in Frankston North , and it's a viable egg farm. It's doomed to yield 1100 housing lots!

Native animals, conservation corridors, food production, green wedges and picturesque land and our city's “lungs” can't hold back the spread of concrete, housing and the lucrative profits from population growth.

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke will have to give environmental approval before the growth plans can proceed. However, with State government having control over biodiversity and with no population policy coming from Burke, also the Minister of Sustainable Population, there is little chance the answer will be “no”!

Please, please follow the recommendations of Jill Redwood and Environment East Gippsland. All of the incredible battles won, rare animals and precious forests will be trashed unless we prevent this new legislation.
Please act ASAP.

URGENT

This is an interim email while we prepare an East Gippsland forest update.

Most would recall that the Baillieu government, in response to our 2010 court win for Brown Mountain, is set to alter the laws governing protection of rare wildlife. It would allow logging to go ahead regardless of what is found there. We suspect they have their sights set on clearfelling Brown Mountain when this is passed – as pay-back.

For those who can, we are asking people to send comments (submissions) into the DSE opposing this plan in the strongest terms possible. Deadline is close of business on Wednesday 1^st Feb. But please don’t put this aside. The sooner the better.

The story in brief:

Our Sept 2010 Brown Mountain Supreme Court win for endangered wildlife has upset the new Baillieu Coalition government - so they are going to change the laws that says they must be protected.

To start with, they are set to change a few words in the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 (see below).This Code is a ‘loggers environmental rule book’ of sorts and is part of the legal regime that is meant to ‘protect’ our forests while they are being clearfelled yeah ... I know).

The proposed change will take out ‘must do’ protection for threatened species and their habitat. It will allow the DSE Secretary to approve any and all forests planned for logging regardless of whether endangered wildlife live there. This lacks any transparency or accountability. It basically overrides the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act’s individual Action Statements for species protection.

They are knowingly and deliberately rendering useless, the only part out of the FFG Act that logging had to adhere to (especially since our court win). Quolls, Potoroos, the large owls and gliders would all have their home ranges or large parts of it wiped off the map if the logging industry says it must log those forests. And of course it will.

As part of the protocol for changing these rules, the government has to ask us, the public, what we think.

This is their main planned change:

“Forest management planning and all forestry operations must comply with measures specified in relevant Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Action Statements (unless determined by the Secretary that the requirements of an Action Statement do not apply) and any Flora and Fauna Guarantee Orders."

If you can let them know what you think about all this, below are some dot points that might give you some ideas to pad out and reword in any order or way you want – and as few or as many points as you want to use.

Send them to: [email protected] headed "Submission to Code change" (or similar). You could also CC it to Baillieu himself so his staff will know what people think as well. [email protected]

Please help deluge the government. Don’t forget. Bung it in your desk or computer’s diary or better still do it now. Let’s see if we can hit them with at least a hundred letters/emails. Five hundred would be even better!

Dot points

1. This further weakens Victoria’s already weak legal framework for biodiversity protection.

2. Can’t claim wildlife is well protected elsewhere without first doing multiple and thorough surveys in every reserved forest in the state and in every season.

3. The FFGA listed species has already had a scientific committee assess the status and needs of each species. It was agreed that these animals are in danger of disappearing, hence their Action Statement. The secretary must not override these scientific findings.

4. Victoria’s forest dependent threatened wildlife like Quolls and those that need hollow trees are in serious decline mostly due to logging.

5. The past decade of fires has added to Victoria’s forest wildlife’s serious decline .

6. Simply assuming that wildlife can ‘survive and flourish’ (to quote the FFGA) inside the small disjointed reserves is being irresponsible and unscientific.

7. Parks and reserves have historically been declared in areas deemed unnecessary for development or resource extraction, or are of low quality for other uses. This does not always provide the prime habitat needed for many rare species such as gliders and owls.

8. Habitat modelling is not a fool-proof way to protect rare wildlife. They can be found in unpredictable habitats and not found in seemingly suitable areas.

9. There is a very real possibility of wildlife being made extinct in Victoria due to ongoing habitat destruction.
This will have Ted Baillieu’s name on it.

10. There is no credibility in the claim of ‘balancing’ the needs of logging industry and environment. It has been balanced in favour of logging for the past 40 years.

11. Looking after species at a “landscape level” is also rubbish. The species are listed as needing protection for the very reason that they no longer occur “at a landscape level” but in small often isolated patches.

12. The exemption of the logging industry from the FFGA, via the Code is outrageous.

13. The fact that the secretary is unaccountable to anyone in this decision is an outrage. He MUST consult with experts, notify the public of a decision and give reasons and evidence he used. His decisions MUST be able to be scrutinised, reviewed and challenged. To cut out this basic tool of democracy to aid one industry is another outrage.

14. Every forest stand which supports a listed species MUST be left intact and not clearfelled and burnt by VicForests.

15. Baillieu promised his government would restore integrity, transparency and accountability. Let’s see it.

Jill Redwood
Environment East Gippsland

Federal Labor Member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, has condemned reports in an article by Josh Gordon, "Push to cut planning appeals,"The Age, 29/11/11, that the Victorian Liberal Government is seriously considering proposals to further reduce the rights of residents to object to inappropriate developments in their neighbourhoods. (Mr Thomson's electorate of Wills, Victoria, Australia, has very high population and development density, with severe traffic congestion.)

The Victorian Minister for Planning, Mathew Guy, is considering industry proposals to reduce the standing of the public to object to commercially-motivated development of their built and natural environment, according to the Age article.

Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch has been quoted as believing that current rules are ''excessively democratic'' and that they encourage ''vexatious objectors.''

Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash and www.marvellousmelbourne.org has said that she would be opposed to any reduction in rights to objection. She later observed that the Master Builders complain that 7% of applications end up in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). "What this says to me is that 93% go straight through. They have nothing to complain about as far as I can see."

The Victorian Treasury department has called for an overhaul of the land-planning framework to reduce conflicting policy objectives between government departments, which it sees as providing excessive scope for appeals.

''The land planning framework should be overhauled to reduce the scope for appeals due to conflicting policy objectives, clarify who has standing to appeal planning decisions and assess the potential for greater use of market instruments to achieve planning objectives,'' according to the treasury briefing document.

Federal MP, Mr Kelvin Thomson, says, “The last thing the Victorian Government should be doing is making it easier for developers to construct more high rise, more apartments and more concrete monstrosities.”

“Premier Ted Baillieu and Planning Minister Matthew Guy when in Opposition were very critical of the former State Government’s handling of the planning system. They have no mandate whatsoever to contemplate measures to further reduce residents say on planning and development proposals.

“The plans being considered by the Liberal State Government would provide less scope to appeal against contentious planning proposals. The Age report suggests that the appeal process could be pared back to cut the number of objectors, on the basis that it costs developers money.

“Such an approach displays an arrogant disregard for the costs that high rise concrete monstrosities impose on local communities- more traffic, more congestion, more carbon emissions, increased pressure on local infrastructure and services, the suffocation of local amenity and the effect on physical and mental wellbeing.

“All too often property developers make handsome profits at the expense of local residents and communities, profiting from infrastructure which local communities have built and paid for, and leaving locals to live with the inconvenience of loss of amenity which comes with more crowded neighbourhoods.

“In my own electorate there are numerous examples of residents and neighbourhoods being short-changed, disregarded, and left to pick up the pieces- such as the Union Street U108 development in Brunswick, the Kodak Redevelopment and former Coburg High School site in Coburg, the Bell St-York St and Cumberland Rd developments in Pascoe Vale, the former Tip Top Site, Nicholson St and 240 Lygon Street developments in Brunswick etc.

“Developers use doublespeak terms like "sustainable", "exemplary design", "efficient planning" and "reduced footprint". These are all code for removing residents' rights to meaningfully object to developments in their neighbourhoods.

“Any further moves to prevent residents from having a say will only damage the quality of life for residents in Melbourne, and take our city down the road of the high-rise concrete jungles of Asia and Latin America.

“The planning system needs to provide residents, local communities and local councillors with a greater ability to have a say on what developments are appropriate for their neighbourhoods- not a reduced one”, Mr Thomson concluded.

Sources:Josh Gordon, "Push to cut planning appeals,"The Age, 29/11/11 and a Media Release from Kelvin Thomson MP, Member for Wills, Wednesday 30 November 2011. Media contact: Anthony Cianflone 9350 5777 or 0424 138 558

Have you spent a lot of time on the Mornington Peninsula, but never heard of Tootgarook Swamp or its values? If your answer is yes, well you aren't the only ones. We were in that position a few months ago too and here is what we've learned since then.

Have you spent a lot of time on the Mornington Peninsula, but never heard of Tootgarook Swamp or its values? If your answer is yes, well you aren't the only ones. We were in that position a few months ago too and here is what we've learned since then.

Once a major landmark, diminished by peat mining

· Tootgarook Swamp was once the largest landmark on the southern end of the peninsula stretching almost the whole length between the bay and the ocean.
· The area used to be home to hundreds of species of native fauna including Southern Brown Bandicoot(endangered), Eastern Quoll(extinct on mainland), Long-nosed Potoroo (endangered), Australian Bustard(critically endangered) to name just a few.

Unfortunately it was also valuable for its special Peat soil which was extracted and used as fertilizer on nearby farms and experimented with in hopes of producing electricity and gas from it. Dredging allowed enrichment for this fertiliser process and also gave opportunity for grazing land, and residential housing developments to occur on the Swamp and human interference caused a lot of changes and damage to the natural environment as well as increased flooding which is still being addressed currently.

Still home to 115 species of birds and other animals whose habitats are endangered everywhere

So maybe now you're thinking, why should try to save it now? We also asked that and after much research we found many reasons which we've listed below.

· Because it is still home to over 115 different bird species, some of which are endangered or threatened. Many are migratory and travel thousands of kilometres to the area to use breeding site and produce new generations of birds.
· The Swamp contains many indigenous flora species which no longer readily occur on the peninsula. Endangered Communities of indigenous vegetation still grow in the area.
· It also houses many species of native mammals, reptiles, fish and insects. Some of these are also endangered or no longer plentiful on the Mornington Peninsula.
· It is all that's left of an important part of the history of the Mornington Peninsula.
· Because it's a floodplain and the Swamp helps to control the flooding by acting as a retarding basin and sponge, by holding, storing and soaking up excess water.
· Water is important for everyone. Wetlands keep our waterways healthy by filtering, cleaning water as it flows through. Wetlands filter suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, organic matter (which may break down here too) and even oil. They treat stormwater naturally before releasing it back into our waterways and ground water. This ground water is used for irrigation on farms and keeps our soil healthy so we can grow trees and crops as well as many residential bores.
· Peat wetlands globally have been identified as a major storehouse of the world's carbon, exceeding that of forests. They actively accumulate organic matter into carbon sinks. Both aspects are worthy of attention by the UNFCCC.
· Peat wetlands have a wide international significance and their wise use is relevant to the implementation of the RAMSAR Convention, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and other international instruments and agreements.
· Peat wetlands play a special role in conserving global biodiversity because they are the refuge of some of the rarest and most unusual species of wetland-dependent flora and fauna.
· Peat wetlands have been recognized by the RAMSAR Convention as a particularly threatened wetland type.
· Peat wetlands are the predominant wetland type for cultural heritage, notably through their capacity to preserve archaeological remains and the palaeobiological record under waterlogged and deoxygenated conditions.
· It is mostly in the hands of private landholders. If we do not give voice to a voiceless environment nothing will stop it from being destroyed to make way for more development on the Mornington Peninsula
· It is important as a habitat for animals at a vulnerable stage in their life cycles and provides a refuge when adverse conditions such as drought prevail.
· As a signatory to the RAMSAR Convention, Australia has an obligation to promote the conservation of Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR listed wetlands) and the wise use of all wetlands.
· Although wetlands cover only about 3% of the Earth's surface, they are vital to our environment.
· Wetlands constitute a resource of great economic, scientific, cultural, and recreational value for the community.
· Environmental degradation is more prominent within wetland systems than any other ecosystem on earth. By 1993 half the world's wetlands had been drained.

Tootgarook Swamp needs RAMSAR status

So with all these reasons now we need to ask How do we save Tootgarook Swamp? (see www.SPIFFA.org/ for more in-depth information or view photos at Facebook-Friends of Sanctuary Park.)
One important way we have identified is through the RAMSAR convention. What is this?

The Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. The Convention’s mission is “the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”. At the centre of the Ramsar philosophy is the “wise use” concept. The wise use of wetlands is defined as “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development”. “Wise use” therefore has at its heart the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources, for the benefit of humankind.

To become a Ramsar site the Tootgarook Swamp must go through a nomination process to assess whether it meets the criteria necessary to become an internationally recognized site. We are currently encouraging the Mornington Peninsula Shire and Government Agencies to begin this nomination process but we need your support.

To support a Ramsar nomination for the Tootgarook Swamp we encourage you to pass this information to as many people as possible.
If you support this Nomination we ask that you email Send Email to Mornington Peninsula Shire Mayor Graham Pittock along with your name and address stating that you support this nomination.

"Despite this grim picture, unlike global population growth, our own population future is very much under our control and we need not be overwhelmed. Stability of population numbers is within our reach this century. We owe it to Victorians who will be born 50 years from now to take control so that those who come after us can enjoy what we have enjoyed – clean air and water and reliable food and housing supplies. To do nothing is the real crime against humanity." Jill Quirk, President, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) Victoria.

Today, 28 October 2011, Jill Quirk, President of the Victorian Branch of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) spoke about the frightening trends in human population growth world-wide and in Victoria and Australia. Her message was that, despite the fact that Victoria and Australia are part of the overpopulation problem, it is still possible to stop before we are overwhelmed. Politicians and the commercial interests they serve by fanning local population growth here need to be made instead to serve the public good by stabilising our population.

"On October 31st the world’s population will zoom past the 7 billion mark just 12 years after reaching 6 billion. Despite taking all of human history up to 1800 to reach 1 billion, many seem to think the phenomenon of ever increasing human numbers is inevitable and normal!" said President Quirk.

"Globally we are growing at the expense of the environment on which we depend, threatening our water, air and food security. Our numbers are impacting on all the other creatures with whom we share the planet."

Ms Quirk said that, to many, the global human population “explosion” seems so vast that it is difficult to see how we might ever exert control over it.

"No one can be sure when this staggering increase might reach its zenith. We do know however that growth, even slower growth cannot continue forever."

Despite the impression we are given that "For those who've come across the seas, we've boundless plains to share," [1] we are running out of pure fresh freely accessible water, our few good soils are being impoverished and built over in Victoria, or threatened by extreme mining technologies like gas-fracking. Yes, our population is growing much too rapidly and is already too big. But this is not because of natural growth, it is because of government policy for extreme immigration numbers.

"Sadly, Victoria’s population also grows very rapidly cheered on by vested interests, lobbyists and the government. This growth and associated development is destructive to coastal areas, waterways and biodiversity, all of which also struggle with a changing climate," says Jill Quirk.

On a more optimistic note, however, she adds, "Despite this grim picture, unlike global population growth, our own population future is very much under our control and we need not be overwhelmed. Stability of population numbers is within our reach this century."

She says, "We owe it to Victorians who will be born 50 years from now to take control so that those who come after us can enjoy what we have enjoyed – clean air and water and reliable food and housing supplies.

To do nothing is the real crime against humanity."

We are often given the impression and even schoolchildren receive this propaganda that Australia is nearly empty and should therefore take on as many people as wish to come here, as if this arid continent could somehow act as a relief valve for the rest of this enormous planet. In fact Australia is already very densely populated on the thin green fringes around its southern and Eastern coasts, but very sparsely populated in the interior. There is a reason for this settlement pattern. Climate, rainfall and soil fertility make much of Australia almost uninhabitable for industrial society. Quite a bit of Australia is dry hot desert, similar to the Gobi Desert in China, which is also sparsely populated. Contiguous to Australia's deserts are rangelands. Those parts contain some mines and rangeland grazing, but little else. Even when only Aboriginal peoples lived here they only occupied the rangelands in very low numbers, which they kept low with very strict marriage laws that limited fertility opportunity for clan members.

Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch)
www.population.org.au
Patrons: Hon Bob Carr, Dr Paul Collins, Prof Tim Flannery, Prof Ian Lowe, Dr Mary E White

[1] From "Advance Australia Fair," Australia's National Anthem.

Watch the trailer here

Mary Drost of Planning Backlash writes: "I saw the movie this afternoon in Elsternwick. A full house and rave comments. It is brilliant and will inspire you to never give up. Really everyone should see it, and that includes Councillors and MPs. It shows what people power can do!"

About 'The Triangle Wars'

A celebrity photographer. An eccentric politician. A high-powered property developer. An epic battle to decide the fate of a St Kilda parking lot.

In May 2007 the Port Phillip City Council unveiled plans for a large-scale commercial development on the St Kilda foreshore - a $400 million mega mall that would comprise 180 shops, a hotel, a supermarket, eight cinemas, a gallery and five bars. Local residents were outraged, and with developers preparing to push the project through council, the community galvanised to stop it going ahead.

A compelling story of democracy in action, truth proves stranger than fiction as accusations of betrayal, deceit and corruption abound. Filmed over three years, The Triangle Wars captures the fascinating battle between an outraged community, an intractable local government apparatus and a powerful development consortium, as heads roll and careers are destroyed.

Directed by local residents Rosie Jones and produced by Lizzette Atkins and Peter George for Circe Films.

Where to see it

'The Triangle Wars' in cinemas - starts Thursday for a short time only this Thursday 6th October at six cinemas in Victoria, and in Hobart and Narooma, NSW. It is important for Australian democracy and the war against the growth lobby and over population to attend the first few screenings.

It's really important to get people there straight away - if we don't, our season will be cut very short. If word of mouth in Melbourne is favorable, the film will travel to cinemas around Australia, and possibly the world, so please spread the world.

Jill Quirk of Sustainable Population Australia writes, "I agree with Mary Drost about this film. It is a wonderful souvenir of the events and the characters."

Screening details

Nova, Carlton Daily: 11:25AM, 3:20PM, 7:05PM
The Classic, Elsternwick Mon, Tue, Wed: 12:30PM, 4:30PM, 8:30PM
The Cameo, Belgrave Mon, Tue, Wed: 2:30PM, 6:40PM

Peninsula Cinema, Sorrento Thur, Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon: 9:15PM, Tue: 7:10PM, Wed 9:15PM
Theatre Royal, Castlemaine Thu 20 Oct: 7:30PM, Sat 22 Oct: 12:00PM Sun 23 Oct: 5:00PM, Thu 27 Oct: 9:15PM, Fri 28 Oct: 7:45PM, Sat 29 Oct: 5:30PM, Sun 30 Oct: 5:30PM
State Cinema, Hobart Mon, Tur, Wed: 11:15AM, 5:45PM
Narooma Cinema, Narooma

How to screen The Triangle Wars in your community

If you would like to screen THE TRIANGLE WARS in your community, please get in touch to see how easy it can be.
Film hire is available to community groups for a discounted rate. Phone (07) 3262 2009 or email [email protected] for details. Screen THE TRIANGLE WARS in your community to raise debate on your local development issues or as a fundraiser event. Get inspired!

Participants were shocked recently to hear Ms Prue Digby, Deputy Secretary, Planning and Local Government, Department of Planning and Community Development include in her paper on "housing a growing population" a section on "eliminating the NIMBY culture" at the Informa Australia "Population Australia - 2050 Summit." Article by Julianne Bell.

By Julianne Bell
On Monday and Tuesday 26 and 27 September 2011 I I - representing Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., I attended the second annual Conference organised by Informa Australia Pty Ltd entitled, “Population Australia - 2050 Summit”. This was a national conference and included public servants from Government (State, Federal and Local); eminent academics; and representatives of the business world and the housing industry plus a smattering of representatives of community groups. (Several of us were able to attend only because a benefactor provided us with the admission tickets or Conference fees.)

Ms Prue Digby, Deputy Secretary, Planning and Local Government, Department of Planning and Community Development included in her paper on "housing a growing population" a section on "eliminating the NIMBY culture". Participants were shocked as we considered that this was confrontational and indicated a contemptuous view of the community by a member of a Government Department. We were additionally shocked when she presented a solution stating that 30% of future population growth could be accommodated in "infill" housing in established suburbs. (Dr Bob Birrell of Monash University labels this "opportunistic infill" by developers.)

I - Julianne Bell - asked a question at the end of Ms Digby’s speech as follows: “Your Minister. Matthew Guy, advised us after the election that future density of development would be directed to the inner city, for example in developments such as E-Gate and Fisherman’s Bend and not in the suburbs. Yet after the election we are seeing high rise or high density (housing) proposals in Bayside, Banyule and Boroondara City Councils. Can you clarify what are your policy directions (concerning infill housing)?

Ms Digby refused to answer the question and said “You had better ask him yourself” and with that she left the podium. Unfortunately, we cannot give you a tape of her statement as Ms Digby insisted that Informa and Sustainable Population Australia Inc., who chaired Day One of the Conference, delete their recordings.

Mark O'Connor (Professional Poet and Author of "Overloading Australia") spoke at the Conference on "Environmental and social implications of a 'Big Australia' . He commented to me on Prue Digby's statement about "infill" in suburbs. He said: " Densification cheats residents out of quality of life" and that "it indicates the constant decline of our living standards".

We are seeking clarification from the Minister for Planning about increased density in established suburbs using infill and on promoting high rise along transports routes (tram, bus and rail) and around stations as this is contrary to his stated policies after the election. The questions are topical ones in Banyule, Boroondara and Bayside to name a few suburbs.

Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

Injunction extended

The Supreme Court 19th September extended the injunction to stop logging in Sylvia Creek forest near Toolangi after VicForests agreed to the moratorium.

MyEnvironment - Toolangi forest logging halted until 2012

The Department of Sustainability and Environment predictably dismissed concerns of conservationists by saying that there was no sign of live possums in the Sylvia Creek coupe at Toolangi, and that it did not meet the legal criteria of prime possum habitat.

Both statements reek of dispassionate recklessness.  These possums are tiny, nocturnal, in small numbers, and they live in holes in trees that are up to 50 meters tall. 

No confidence in VicForests
The public can have no confidence in the surveys done by VicForests as they were not supported by those carried out by expert ecologists and biologists.   Government departments are incapable of assessing the effect of logging on endangered species as their interests are primarily economic. 

Trashing the environment for short-term woodchip profits transforms areas rich in biodiversity into clear-felled wastelands that take decades to recover. 

Over half of the Leadbeater's possums' habitat was destroyed by Black Saturday, and the BAER (Burnt Area Emergency Response)  team recommended that this area not be logged, yet it continued.   Habitats of listed threatened species were logged. 

According to research published in US journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the old-growth is nearly gone and on the verge of being unrecoverable. The Age

We are having our ecological and environmental assets stripped from the integrity of Victoria and from the people who need our life-supporting biological services. All species keep our ecological systems working, and they all have a role to play.

VicForests are losing money and taxpayers are subsidizing these losses. It's to keep fat-cat jobs in Parliament. Most of these trees goes to woodchips, not fine furniture.

The Tasmanian government seems to be accepting it's time to get clear-felling out of native forests. Their agreement is designed to see an end to large scale native forest logging and create more than 400,000 hectares of new informal reserves.

Now the Victorian government must do the same and place the intrinsic value of native forests and biodiversity, especially our threatened Leadbeater's Possum and other species, over the economic benefits of office paper.

It's a case of being in denial, of conflicting interests, and of not finding the facts, or evidence of threatened species, that they don't want to find.

The court extended an injunction blocking logging until next February, when it will revisit the matter.

David Walsh of VicForests arrogantly said that VicForests has chosen not to challenge the interim injunction at this stage of the game to allow this matter to be fully resolved at a trial as quickly as possible.

Really?

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.

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

Banyule Homestead

Historic Banyule Homestead, located in Buckingham Drive, Heidelberg has a Development Application pending (Notice dated 11 May, 2011) to subdivide the land and build a number of townhouses.  Application No. P14284

The Homestead and its grounds as well as the surrounding area of Banyule Flats, are the remaining parts of the Banyule Estate dating from the pre Gold Rush era of the 1840’s. This property is one of a few remaining of its type in the State and of major cultural, environmental and historic significance.

Brief History

Banyule Homestead was built in 1846 for Joseph Hawdon, to a design by Colonial architect John Gill. Heidelberg in the 1840’s was a desirable location for rural retreats of the colonial
gentry. Gill designed several houses in medieval styles but Banyule Homestead is his only known one in the Elizabethan style, which was more common in Sydney than Melbourne at the time.

It was finished by Joseph Hawdon in 1846. Set on 283 hectares (700 acres). It's a mansion almost as old as Melbourne with over 2 hectares of gardens. John Hawdon was an Australian pioneer. Hawdon's villa was replaced with a “handsome Elizabethan mansion known as Banyule”.

Banyule Homestead is predominantly Elizabethan in style with Flemish Gables, pepper pot chimney groups and some Gothic Revival elements. It is one of only a few remaining houses or homesteads of this style and of this era in Victoria.

It had a succession of 20th century owners who made it into a cattle stud, but by 1950s the house had fallen into disuse. Sold 1950 with 275 acres. Mr Stanley Korman developed it for housing. Robert Simpson bought it, only a few acres remained. The house badly needed help. There were birds in the dining room!

1963 Banyule Homestead with about 3 acres of garden was purchased by Mr and Mrs Robert G Simpson as a family home. It was renovated and restored.

The original simplicity was changed to give it a somewhat Gothic character to the building.

Korman Group subdivided and sold a lot of the land.
The house was classified “A” (to be preserved at all costs) by the National Trust of Australia (Victoria).

The homestead should have been given to the City of Banyule as it is part of our heritage. It should have stayed open to the people of Victoria.

It's a mockery of democratic process that this property was sold into private hands after NGV when it was deemed as “surplus” government property. It was offered for sale by the Minister of Finance.

The State Government bought the property from Mr Simpson in 1974 for use as n extension of the National Gallery for $2 million from the State to secure this important collection of painting of the Heritage School of Art.

The council lacked imagination in not buying it in 1994. Lack of business foresight on their part. It was a lost opportunity.

1995. Commissioner Lawrie Jones described the building as being “woven into the architectural fabric” of the area. “I would be very concerned if the homestead was sold and the car-park and surrounding grounds carved up in residential development.” The Banyule municipality was named after the house!

There is a heritage overlay over the property in the Banyule Planning Scheme. The Homestead and its grounds are recognised as being of both State and National significance by Heritage Victoria and the National Trust.

The Council had the money to but homestead but commissioners Julian Stock and Laurie Jones were not in favour of spending it on the property.

(Photo courtesy of Friends of Banyule. The townhouses would be imposed on this view.)

Property's value

It has historical, architectural and aesthetic, tourist and environmental values and should be available for the public, not just for a few. It is part of the fabric of our history.

Walls of handmade brick, it represents an era of gracious living, now largely gone. Melbourne, only a few miles away when it was an infant township.

The property needs to earn a living as no one can afford to keep it.
Some of the features are:

• Sandstone foundation
• cedar woodwork
• two foot thick walls of thin hand-made bricks
• Roof with massive trusses fitted together without nails – like a ship
• Wrought-iron keys
• Shingle roof probably changed to slate.
• Large cellars
• Cedar and teak timber for ceiling, rafters, doors and floors imported from England
• 16 rooms

Application for Subdivision
The application for subdivision would in our view, seriously diminish the heritage integrity of the listed property including its historic site, as a whole. Its grounds and setting, being an integral part of it.

With a substantial portion of its grounds gone and with three two storey, contemporary town houses in close proximity, its setting would be materially altered and diminished in a significant way. There is no on going “reasonable economic use” involved here;

With all the profits from property taxes, stamp duty, and income from property development, it's pure hypocrisy that a stately old and such an important building as this isn't funded and cared for adequately. With respect for indigenous people already gone, it's clear that our Colonial history is not of much value either. Without the nimbys, there would be no checks to the land grabs for developments, and they would have the freedom to use our suburbs for their own greed and profits.

The application is presently being accessed by Heritage Victoria.
Minister for Planning, Mr Matthew Guy
[email protected]

Level 7
1 Spring Street
Melbourne
Victoria, 3000

Heritage Victoria
Department of Planning and Community Development
1 Spring Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
(GPO Box 2392, Melbourne VIC 3001)
Level 9, 8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne VIC 3002
(PO Box 500 East Melbourne, East Melbourne VIC 3002)

Increasing private-public partnerships, contracting out, privatisation, creation of authorities 'outside government' etc over the past 20 years in Victoria "has led to a steady erosion of accountability to Parliament and the public, as these services and the public monies that fund them fall outside existing accountability frameworks and the mandate of this office." (Auditor General, Victoria) The forward plan also notes concerns about population growth and food security.

On Tuesday 24 May 2011 Victoria's Auditor-General, Des Pearson, tabled his Annual Plan for 2011-12 today in the Victorian Parliament.

The Annual Plan contains details of areas of audit interest for 2011-12, and a forward program of proposed audits for 2012-13 to 2014-15. Among these, are plans for ammendments to the Audit Act 1994[1]. Below we cite from that document, although some of the headings are from the editors of candobetter.net.

Amendments to the Audit Act 1994 are needed

Over the past 20 years, Victoria has seen an increase in the ‘arms-length’ delivery of public services through the private and community sectors. There has been increased private sector involvement in the delivery of public services through arrangements such as outsourcing and public private partnerships. There has also been a trend to create new legal entities ‘outside government’, such as companies, associations and statutory bodies, allowing these entities to access broader revenue sources and more flexible governance regimes.

Steady erosion of accountability

"This has led to a steady erosion of accountability to Parliament and the public, as these services and the public monies that fund them fall outside existing accountability frameworks and the mandate of this office.

Responding to these changes in the way government delivers services, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) held an inquiry last year into the Act.[2]

VAGO made several representations to the inquiry, including a formal submission.

The all-party report of this Parliamentary Inquiry made wide-ranging recommendations, seeking to prevent the erosion of public sector accountability, strengthen the independence of VAGO and update the Act to reflect contemporary trends.

PAEC unanimously recommended measures to:

• ‘close the gap’ on entities currently outside Parliament’s audit mandate
• allow access to public sector information held by private sector contractors
• introduce annual audits of performance statements and management controls
• enable joint audits with other Australian auditors-general
• improve the effectiveness of external performance audits of VAGO
• ensure agency comment included in our reports to Parliament is accurate, balanced and substantiated.

Urgent Need to repair the Audit Mandate

As indicated in our Annual Plan 2010–11, the Act is in urgent need of reform.

Auditor General needs access to public information held by private sector contractors

In April 2011, the government tabled its response to PAEC’s recommendations. The government response included support in principle for some of the key recommendations; in particular access to public sector information held by private sector contractors and ‘closing the gap’. A number of other recommendations were also supported.

Given the importance of the need to repair the audit mandate, a number of technical and legal issues will need to be discussed further with government as it considers how any amendments should proceed. VAGO looks forward to a strong role in the further development of amendments to the Act.

Population growth and diminishing oil supplies

Our scanning during development of the 2011–12 Annual Plan reconfirmed climate change and the environment; the ageing of our population; risks to sustainable development from diminishing oil supplies; population growth; and the continuing need
for transparency and accountability, as major challenges for government in coming years. In addition, the Council of Australian Governments Reform Agenda continues to affect the scheduling and focus of our program of performance audits, particularly in the health sector. [3]

[Candobetter.net Editor:] From reading this report, notably the attachments from page 58, it seems that in 2009 the Auditor-General looked into Victoria's food security and concluded that there were no significant risks. Since then, however, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) has suggested that the matter be revisited, i.e. that food security may now be an issue.

"The Committee supports the Auditor-General's commitment to environmental scanning of issues and understands this underpins the Office's multi-year audit program. The Committee considers therefore, it would be beneficial if the Auditor-General's Office updated its research with relevant information on food security from 2010 and 2011 prior to scopint this audit to consider more recent research on issues surrounding food security." (PAEC)

The Victorian Auditor General responds on page 60 by noting the PAEC's comments and undertakes to consider food security in the audit research and scoping. Here the Auditor General also agrees, "As advised in the conduct of its annual planning function, VAGO will continue to, consider issues such as population growth and its impact on current and future service delivery and public sector activity."

NOTES

Source of material in this article: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx

[1] "1.3 Amendments to the Audit Act 1994,"http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx, p.3.

[2] "The former government sought to consolidate accountability arrangements for public bodies under one Act. The Public Finance and Accountability Bill 2009 was introduced into Parliament in December 2009, however, the Bill lapsed without being passed through the Upper House when Parliament was prorogued in October 2010. Any further progress on these reforms will be dependent upon the new government’s priorities." http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx ,p1.

[3] http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx, p.4.

Here is some documentation for the 18 May 2011 PAEC discussion on Energy and Resources by the way: Hansard proof report - not for quoting - http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/paec/2011-12_Budget_Estimates/Presentations/Energy_and_Resources_presentation.pdf/Energy_and_Resources_presentation.pdf

Freeway madness!

Our parklands are under threat!  Hundreds of kilometres of new freeways and expanded roads would be built across Melbourne over the next 30 years, under plans revealed in a highly detailed government map obtained by The Age in 2010 .   This threat includes the promised $6 billion North-East Link freeway/tunnel through Heidelberg, and a major road from Eltham to Donvale.

According to The Age (27/4) - - rail loses out to road spending. Road building has received four times more federal, state and local government funding over the past decade than new rail projects, the report says.

Only Tasmania spends less on rail, and they have no commuter rail system. The ACF found that Australia’s public transport sector is a poor cousin to roads when it comes to funding. Our government is simply a living relic of a former era, trapped in a 1950s/60s time-warp!

Heidelberg/Banyule parklands worth protecting

Heidelberg/Banyule's heritage includes valuable parklands worth protecting. The Heidelberg area is recognised as originally belonging to the local indigenous people, the Wurundjeri willam. Sacred sites, traditional names and indigenous community contributions are important to our understanding of the region's past, present and future.   In 1837 government surveyor Robert Hoddle surveyed the area and created three parishes extending from what is now Fitzroy to beyond Diamond Creek.

With Melbourne's expansion in the early 1900s, many successful farmers, government administrators and entrepreneurs bought blocks of land and small farms in the area, and there are many examples of significant period houses, mansions and “gentlemen farmers”.

An artists' haven

Heidelberg, now included in the area of Banyule, also has a significant European cultural heritage associated with painters of the Heidelberg School, such as Arthur Streeton, Tom Roberts, Frederick McCubbin, Charles Condor, Walter Withers, Jane Price, May Vale and Clara Southern, and architects and urban landscapers including Walter Burley Griffin, Ellis Stones and Edna Walling.

John and Sunday Reed purchased the property now known as Heide in 1934, transforming the original Victorian farmhouse into the French provincial-style cottage we see today. The house and property were named Heide, in an affectionate reference to the nearby town of Heidelberg.
Banyule has close links with the birth of the Australian Art Movement and significant Heidelberg school artists such as Albert Tucker, Sydney Nolan and Sunday Reid, who lived and painted in the area during the 1940s and 50s. Sydney Nolan's first art exhibition was held in Burgundy Street, Heidelberg.

Heidelberg heritage

Throughout the early 1900s farms in the Heidelberg area gave way to residences, shopping centres sprang up along the main roads, and garden suburbs began to appear, particularly around Ivanhoe, Darebin and Eaglemont.

Banyule is renowned for its open spaces and plentiful parklands, especially along the Yarra and Plenty River valleys. People can enjoy the picturesque area for bike riding, walking, the Heide Museum for Modern Art and great local restaurants and for sporting activities. It is a place where people can see and appreciate wetlands and native fauna and flora. 

Little value given to natural heritage

There are few places left in  Melbourne where you can find koala's, kangaroos, 115 bird and 4 bat species all in one place.  It's no accident that many now well-known artists and architects enjoyed the river views and the pretty landscapes.

River parks such as those of the Banyule Wetlands and within the Yarra Corridor are a vital area for wildlife, rare migratory birds and protected species of flora, with large areas currently under protection by Banyule Council.

However, our natural assets get very little protection in Victoria, and are unlikely to stop the destruction. Peninsula Link went straight through the heritage listed Westerfield property complete with endangered species and hardly a person lifted a finger to help! A gang of mounted police came to assist the bulldozers, and they arrested a few protesting grandmas. Brumby’s road builders bulldozed the area without re-homing any of the animals - just bulldozed them and their homes too!

Freeway destruction

For the freeway/tunnel/viaduct to proceed, adaptions to our landscape may include:

    * Acquisition of Watsonia Barracks land – an important green wedge
    * Installation of sound walls along Greensborough Road from the Western Ring Road to Lower Plenty Road
    * Possible interference with land at Heide Museum of Modern Art at the tunnel exit points at Manningham Road
    * Likely loss of current parkland and damage to the same caused by 'staging areas' for tunnel construction at the entry and exit points of the tunnel
    * Interchanges that will have to built at each end to allow entry and exit points from the tunnel/freeway
    * Land acquisitions and sound walls along Bulleen Road
    * Fly-overs along above ground sections of freeway (Greensborough Road and Bulleen Road)
*Increased noise, pollution, and loss of important biodiversity/parkland areas

(The proposed route of the North East Link - right through Banyule historic parklands!)

There are environmentally and economically viable solutions available without the heavy costs and destruction that would be incurred by this monolithic construction.

Roads assume plentiful petrol, but with peak oil, vehicle use must wind down. Rail must be our future, with transport hubs to finish the distribution for goods and services.

Retro State government

Our State government is still adhering to the retro idea of roads and bridges, simply ignoring peak oil and climate change implications. They are also deeply entrenched in the outdated “populate and perish” – rather than a steady-state economy for survival on diminishing resources and climate change.

More should be spent on rail, the future of public transport, than on petrol-dependent cars and trucks. We should be consolidating our existing city, not forcing its expansion and passing the costs onto the public.

The price of continuing an out-dated freeway/tunnel system for Banyule would be far too high. It would mean a loss of its historical, social significance, and biodiversity green-wedge – all natural wealth that is becoming far too frequently destroyed in the name of “progress”. The tunnel will morph into an above-ground freeway due to lack of funds!

Build more roads and you get more car parks and obesity, pollution and oil consumption. On the contrary, if you invest in active public transport and you gain health, access, mobility and liveability.

Growth outstrips funding

Victoria already absorbs more Federal funding than we should in proportion to what we contribute to Australia's overall GDP. We may take a larger proportion of immigrants, but this does not translate into economic growth, but more spending.

Road investment is the equivalent of Harvey Norman's three years interest free - by the time it's paid for it may no longer be an asset but a monolithic white-elephant!

Peak oil?

Where's our government's contingency plan for peak oil? They are burying their heads in the sand, and continuing along the "business as usual" route by focusing on short-term gains! More should be spent on rail, the future of public transport, than on petrol-dependant cars and trucks. We should be consolidating our existing city, not forcing its expansion and passing the costs onto the public.

And they expect us to pay carbon tax? Will they invest in rail, suburban rail?

Alternative solutions exists

North East link offers no solution.
The North East Link freeway will not alleviate the traffic congestion along major roads such as the Greensborogh Road, Rosanna Road, Lower Heidelberg Road and Banksia Street. Studies have shown that the use of these major roads will continue to increase in the years to come. Do we really want our city of Marvellous Melbourne to turn into Los Angeles in a desperate attempt to "solve" our traffic problems? These planners are simply ignoring the reality of peak oil, climate change, and pollution. All these freeways, attempts to secure water for Melbourne, and land developments over green wedges and market gardens is our government's attempt to increase our population!

Our parklands used to be a treasured spot for artists who were inspired by the beauty of the trees, hills, the river, the colours and the tranquility of the area. Our democratic rights, our heritage and amenities should not be up for grabs and be trampled on when there are alternative solutions to the congestion.

Friends of Banyule
Sign the petition

PS: Thanks to Marion Ware of Friends of Banyule for her collaboration with this article, and all their efforts to stop this freeway madness.

Victoria's Auditor-General, Des Pearson, this morning tabled the "Environmental Management of Marine Protected Areas" report in the Victorian Parliament: This audit examined how effectively marine protected areas have been managed to protect biodiversity. It assessed the roles of Parks Victoria, and the Departments of Sustainability and Environment and Primary Industries, in the environmental management of marine protected areas. Parks Victoria cannot show that marine biodiversity is being protected or that the related management obligations of applying resources as intended are being discharged. Little environmental management activity is evident across its marine protected areas.

Environmental Management of Marine Protected Areas

Tabled: 2 March 2011

Marine protected areas, totalling 11.7 per cent of Victoria's marine environment, have been reserved to protect environmental, historical or cultural features. This audit examined how effectively marine protected areas have been managed to protect biodiversity. It assessed the roles of Parks Victoria, and the Departments of Sustainability and Environment and Primary Industries, in the environmental management of marine protected areas.

Parks Victoria cannot show that it is using allocated taxes to help marine environment

Parks Victoria cannot show that marine biodiversity is being protected or that the related management obligations of applying resources as intended are being discharged. Little environmental management activity is evident within marine protected areas.
(In May, 2010, The Auditor General also found that Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria's Parks was complicated, poorly coordinated, and poorly administered. Click here for more on this.)

Nearly half of all national and state park management plans are over a decade old.

10 year old strategy never completed, now expired

The statewide management strategy has neither been fully implemented nor evaluated before expiring in 2010. An absence of regular risk assessment review, detailed action plans and a lack of evaluation—both of management plans and activities—undermine planning at the park level. There were also gaps identified in the Department of Sustainability and Environments lead role in marine environmental policy and marine pest biosecurity.

In common with our 2010 performance audit, Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria's Parks, this audit points to systemic weaknesses with park planning, program management and resource allocation that should be addressed.

You can read the very readable, short, concise,

In May, 2010, The Auditor General found that Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria's Parks was complicated, poorly coordinated, and poorly administered.

In May, 2010, The Auditor General also found that Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria's Parks was complicated, poorly coordinated, and poorly administered. Click here for more on this.

The report was tabled in Victorian Parliament on 26 May 2010

The audit examined the effectiveness of invasive species programs in national and state parks. In particular, it examined the governance arrangements, information systems, planning frameworks and on-ground activities targeting invasive species across the park network.
Among other things, it says,

"Several reports, including the State of the Environment report from the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, have made it clear that Victoria’s biodiversity is in poor condition and declining in most areas. Invasive plants and animals are a major contributor to that decline, and can have substantial economic, environmental and social impacts on parks."

The audit found governance arrangements for the control of invasive species, specifically between the Departments of Sustainability and Environment, Primary Industries and Parks Victoria, are complicated and not well coordinated. There is no single point of focus for oversight or for the responsibility of success or failure.

How well Parks Victoria manages the invasive species threat in parks is unclear. Its planning is not robust, and its data and park management plans are inadequate and increasingly out of date. In addition, monitoring and evaluation of invasive species management activities is inconsistent.

"The governance arrangements for managing invasive species are very complicated and do not clearly assign roles and ultimate responsibility for success or failure. Recent policy emphasises a landscape scale approach—one that disregards
boundaries based on land ownership and use—to manage pervasive threats, such as invasive species. While progress has been made, Parks Victoria (PV) is yet to apply this approach consistently, and no agency is clearly responsible for balancing local and
regional issues with statewide management priorities."

Good progress has been made in managing some invasive species in some parks, but an increasing reliance on short-term initiative funding to address a long-term problem is detrimental to the effectiveness of the effort across the park network.

PV’s human resources management system does not enable accurate reporting on the time spent on invasive species management activities, as it does not differentiate between invasive species activities and other tasks that PV staff routinely
undertake. This is important as invasive species management requires intensive use of human resources. As a consequence, PV could not provide assurance that adequate management activities were occurring, particularly in terms of time spent.

Given the scale of the problem, if these organisational issues and resource constraints are not addressed, invasive species will continue to pose a major and likely growing threat to Victorian parks.

Around 75 per cent of all plant data and 57 per cent of animal data is over 10 years old, while around 30 per cent of plant and animal data is over 20 years old. Data gathering on new and emerging invasive species is not given sufficient emphasis. The lack of universal access to good quality information is hampering coordination between responsible agencies.

Planning and control at the park level There are no park management plans or documents that provide park level detail on threat priorities, the actions to manage these threats or sets out who is responsible for implementing and action. Nearly half of the plans are over a decade old and do not address new and emerging threats—a key element of the current biosecurity
approach.

Victoria's ban on processing kangaroos is robbing the state's agricultural industry of more than $13 million a year, according to the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia. (Weekly Times, 3rd February, 2011)

It also estimated more than $2 million would be created by processing kangaroos, with savings of more than $10 million in the form of less damage to farmland.

Kangaroos caught the headlines when two appeared and forced the cancellation of the Hanging Rock Australia Day races. Now they are in “increasing” proportions, ready to be “harvested”!

A 1980s C.S.I.R.O. aerial survey of kangaroos in western Victoria (Short & Grigg, 1982, Aust. Wildl. Res. 9 : 221-27) surveyed virtually all the habitat of the red kangaroo (Macropus rufus) and the western grey kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus) in the state.

This survey revealed a surprisingly low total number and density of kangaroos in western Victoria which the authors directly attributed to the effects of intensive land use and the marginal nature of remnant vegetation.

More importantly, however, the CSIRO. study questioned the whole basis of kangaroo management and commercialization in Victoria with its keystone principle of agricultural wildlife destruction permits issued under Section 5 of the Wildlife Act 1975. If a kangaroo killing industry was unsustainable then, it would be even less so now. They have suffered 13 years of drought, ongoing human expansions with roads and urbanisation, and Black Saturday's inferno.

How dare the KIAA put a $$ sign on our wildlife! Native animals are protected in Victoria and they MUST stay that way. Kangaroos are not "robbing" us or owe us anything. They belong to Victoria. It is cruel, un-Australian and unsustainable. Putting a dollar value on something intrinsic and indigenous is evil and reeks of filthy lucre.

We must say No to any ideas of a kangaroo meat industry in Victoria. Kangaroos are protected in Victoria and they it must stay that way. This would be a disaster for the animals. It is not sustainable, and the idea horrific. Our bush would become a shooters' target range, and the suffering will be ghastly. Already kangaroos are killed by traffic, "managed" and hated by many landholders, have suffered a prolonged drought, loss of habitat and Black Saturday. Why hate them and hound
them to the end?

We as Humans, are the ones whose population is out of control in these areas that are their native home but we won't propose controls on ourselves.

How low can John Kelly and his KIA, and the VFF sink? They've got kangaroos in their gun-sights, and when they are all obliterated they'll be pushing for the koalas and any other native species that is not fully protected from these trigger-happy buffoons.

We do not have an over-population of kangaroos and studies show kangaroos do not compete with stock for pasture except in times of drought, and crop damage, if any, is usually only within the first few meters of a paddock neighbouring bushland.

SAMPLE letter/email to send to Victoria Minister for the Environment:
Minister for Environment and Climate Change
Minister for Youth Affairs
The Hon. Ryan Smith, MP
Phone03 9637 8890
Email Address: [email protected]
Level 17
8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne
Victoria, 3002

The Hon. Ryan Smith,
Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my concern and horror about the news that the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) are considering a commercial kangaroos industry for Victoria. They say that a ban on commercial killing is “robbing” Victorian farmers of $13 each year! (Weekly Times, 3rd February). Kangaroos do not “owe” us anything and they are protected!

Victorian annual commercial kangaroo kill quotas of 30,000 provided for the 1977 CONCOM Report "Management of Kangaroo Harvesting in Australia" for 1981 and 1982 were actually based on anticipated applications for kangaroo destruction permits under Section 5 of the Wildlife Act for those years. That is, the quotas essentially anticipated the Ministers direct authorisation for wildlife destruction permits in advance.

A 1980s CSIRO. aerial survey of kangaroos in western Victoria (Short & Grigg, 1982, Aust. Wildl. Res. 9 : 221-27) surveyed virtually all the habitat of the red kangaroo (Macropus rufus) and the western grey kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus) in the state.

This survey revealed a surprisingly low total number and density of kangaroos in western Victoria which, as discussed above the authors directly attributed to the effects of intensive land use and the marginal nature of remnant vegetation.

More importantly, however, the CSIRO. study questioned the whole basis of kangaroo management and commercialization in Victoria with its keystone principle of agricultural wildlife destruction permits issued under Section 5 of the Wildlife Act 1975.

As a result of the 1982 CSIRO survey, the Minister immediately abolished the arbitrary Victorian commercial kill quota of 30,000 kangaroos and restored the pre-1980 situation where Victoria refused to participate in the public relations exercise of setting kangaroo kill quotas.

If a kangaroo killing industry was unsustainable now, it would be even less so now. They have suffered 13 years of drought, ongoing human expansions with roads and urbanisation, and Black Saturday's inferno.

Please give the Victorian Farmers Federation and the KIAA's John Kelly a resounding and definite answer of NO to any suggestions of turning our forests and grazing lands into target ranges to hound and kill our already struggling native animals – kangaroos.

We cannot put a monetary value on our diminishing and precious wildlife. Kangaroos are perfect environmental managers and do not cause destruction. They are one of Victoria's assets. Any suggestions of a killing industry is cruel, morally wrong and unsustainable.

Thank you

(name and address)

Also, SIGN the PETITION
Stop Kangaroo Meatworks

Cattle Grazing stopped in Alpine National Park

Cattle were removed from the Alpine National Park in 2005 by the Bracks Government after a thorough investigation by the Alpine Grazing Parliamentary Taskforce. Cattle continued to graze in state forest next to the park.

The high country area of south-east Australia which takes in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory form the unique landscape of the Australian Alps.

Most of the Australian Alps is set aside as national parks but in addition to prescribed burns, a major issue for these alpine and sub-alpine regions has been the grazing of cattle and sheep.

Victorian Coalition announced in a media release that it would return cattle grazing to Victoria's alpine national parks as a strategic tool to reduce fire risk on crown land.

According to the Australian Government website, National parks are protected because they have unspoilt landscapes and a diverse number of native plants and animals. This means that commercial activities such as farming are prohibited, and human activity is strictly monitored. 

“Research” alpine grazing

Cattle have been introduced to six "research" sites in the Alpine National Park. The Mountain Cattlemen's Association says it is confident the Coalition would honour its commitment to reintroduce cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park.

Following the 2002–03 fires which devastated this area of south-east Australia, the Federal Government allocated extra funding for research into managing fire in high altitude terrain.

For some, there is a strong belief that "alpine grazing reduces blazing" : that grazing animals reduce the risk of fire by eating plant material that might otherwise go up in flames.

There is more to conservation than fire prevention. Research conducted by CSIRO scientists shows that cattle generally prefer the open grassy areas for grazing, rather than the heathlands that pose the bigger fire risk.

Fire in alpine environments has been infrequent, with many decades between fires. This is because the combinations of events that are needed for alpine country to burn – an ignition source, prolonged drought, and severe fire weather – occur only several times per century in these regions. (CSIRO)

Science is already clear

Long-term data shows that cattle have very little or no impact on shrub cover (and hence fuel loads) in the heaths. The heaths are therefore likely to burn more severely than the grasslands, and fire severity within heaths – all other things being equal – will be similar whether they are grazed or not.

And following the 2003 bushfires, researchers studying parts of the Bogong High Plains in Victoria, came to a similar conclusion.

Present and past grazing and trampling by domestic livestock have altered the patterns of disturbance in high mountain ecosystems of Australia. Alpine humus soils and associated vegetation can be disturbed by accelerated erosion due to increases in the proportion of bare ground.

Cattle trample vegetation, increasing the amount of bare ground, and wetland communities are very susceptible to trampling damage. Cattle grazing poses a significant threat to at least 25 flora species and seven fauna species found in the park that are listed as rare, vulnerable or threatened with extinction.

Shrub invasion is facilitated by patches of bare ground on which seedlings may establish. Grazing manifestly increases the abundance of bare ground patches, and hence facilitates shrub establishment.

 Over five decades of research has shown that grazing and nature conservation in alpine areas are essentially incompatible land uses.

“Alpine grazing reduces blazing”?

"Alpine grazing reduces blazing" is a widely and strongly held view, in both rural and urban regions, concerning fire in Australia’s high country. The available bio-physical evidence, based on long-term ecological research and the behaviour and impacts of the wide-spread 2003 fires, suggests it does not.

"Mountain Cattlemen care for the high country" . The truth is mountain cattlemen and their cattle decimate the high country. The Coalition are just giving in to the red-necks.

Environmental law barrister Matthew Townsend said the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment should have referred its intention to run a grazing "trial" to the Federal Government. He said the Victorian Government may have breached section 67a of the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act by allowing cattle into the park without federal approval.

Political decision made by inexperienced government

This decision is a political one, due to pressure from a powerful lobby group. The government is inexperienced and our new Environment Minister lacks environmental qualifications, like his predecessor, Gavin Jennings.

Alpine grazing has proved to be a lucrative form of public subsidy for a small number of privileged licence holders. Public land is being used as an auxiliary feed lot. There can be little doubt that those with alpine grazing leases have a lovely extension of their properties to use when feed on their home run is scarce. This is an economic-political decision, not one based on science.

What more must be "researched"?  This trial sounds like Japan's "scientific research" on whales, which is really a smoke-screen for commercial harvesting.

Mount Howitt Summit, Alpine NP

Feral animals

The populations of Sambar and Fallow deer occupying national park and crown land in Victoria has exploded in recent decades.
Parks Victoria needs more resources for controlling threats such as weeds and feral animals, not to have time and money redirected to deal with damaging cattle grazing.

Reference:
Submission to the Alpine Grazing Taskforce, Victoria, June 2004 Professor David Gillieson, Chair, National Committee for Geography, Australian Academy of Science
Ian Potter House, Gordon Street, Canberra 2601

Take Action

Help stop the Baillieu Government from turning Victoria's Alpine National Park into a cow paddock.
Take action keep our alps-cattle-free VNPA

Land sales slump but prices hit new heights

News that the median price has hit $190,000 a block comes as the development industry celebrates three Baillieu government policies aimed at increasing land supply on the urban fringe, reducing the burden of infrastructure levies and making it cheaper to hold land. As a result, sales of Melbourne house blocks have slumped by three-quarters in a year. (The Age report 18th January).

Planning Minister Matthew Guy told The Age the Coalition would also change the controversial infrastructure levy of $95,000 a hectare in Parliament, so that landowners have to pay only when they are ready to develop a new estate - not at the point of purchasing land for development.

Due to greed, favouritism towards developers and population growth, it sounds like land prices may have actually peaked.

The “chronic shortages of land” is being blamed, not boosted demand due to population growth.

Limits of growth

There are limits to growth, including prices. Once prices peak, they will find sales go downwards. It just becomes unaffordable for the average family to buy.

Speaking at a rally held in Melbourne last year to oppose the adoption of Planning Scheme Amendment VC67, Green Wedge Coalition joint co-ordinator Rosemary West said the changes would see 43,600 hectares taken out of the green wedges for urban sprawl.

The urban growth boundary expansion will clear for urban development 5000 hectares of environmentally significant Western Basalt Plains grasslands, the grassy woodlands of the Maribyrnong and Merri Creek catchments with their giant red gums and 4000 hectares of the south east food-bowl where highly productive market gardens using recycled water double as southern brown bandicoot habitat, she said.

Food bowls bulldozed for housing

Melbourne’s South East contains some of Australia’s most fertile agriculture land and produces fresh food for Melbourne’s rapidly growing population. As urban growth takes over existing farmland, new food production areas will need to be developed. 
The project planned would see the development an intensive irrigated food production zone on Melbourne’s south-eastern fringe, to be known as the ‘Bunyip Food Belt’. 

Media Release - July 2010

However, with the State Government able to achieve its population estimates for Casey within a more contained boundary, City of Casey Mayor Cr Lorraine Wreford couldn't understand why Planning Minister Justin Madden abandoned a critical part of the Bunyip Food Belt in favour of urban expansion.

The State Government’s decision to allow the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to encroach on the highly fertile, valuable and sustainable farming lands in Casey is a huge blow to the entire state. 
The agricultural lands of the Bunyip Food Belt have the potential to not only supply abundant and fresh produce to the people of Casey, but to the whole State, so this decision will impact all Victorians.
Once this land is built on, it is gone forever. The State Government’s decision to allow the further expansion of the UGB into an area Council has fought hard to conserve for agriculture, is a bitter disappointment , said Cr Wreford.

Obviously, profits for developers and State coffers are more important than food security.

Land is not a limitless resource

Land is not a limitless resource. We can't have urban sprawl destroying more of the most devastated State in Australia.

We already know the impacts of floods in Brazil due to massive deforestation.

According to the 2008 State of the Environment damning report, Victoria's historic use of land has left a legacy of highly cleared and fragmented native vegetation over much of the State.  Current patterns of resource use in Victoria are unsustainable. 

High levels of vegetation clearing may constitute the crossing of an ecological threshold, beyond which rapid change occurs and ecosystems may not recover.  Development in peri-urban regions is driving loss of natural habitat and biodiversity, as well as agricultural land.

Victoria is already the most heavily cleared state. In Victoria, relatively stringent controls were introduced in 1987, but in the 15 years before that time, land in private hands was cleared at a rate of about 1% per year (CSIRO). Native grasslands are a highly endangered ecological community in Victoria, and have been reduced to less than 1% of their original extent.

We can't keep clearing land and bulldozing ecosystems for housing or we continue to reap the disasters of bushfires, climate change and species losses.

Photo: An Australian housing estate before construction in 2001. This estate is in Narre Warren, Victoria.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Victoria too reliant on property development

In his first interview since assuming the role of Victoria's Treasurer, Mr Wells said Victoria needed to broaden its economic base by rebuilding the neglected areas of agriculture and manufacturing.
It is reliant on population and migration and if one of those two factors flattens then part of the economic base will suffer.

So, our we are embedded in an economy that depends on population growth? Mr Wells also slammed what he branded the unsustainable level of government debt under Labor.

Population growth

The elephant in the room, as usual, is politically-driven population growth. With Victoria's economy based on land and property development, and service industries, there is little else to support our booming growth. We don't need a big population as we do not rely on resource mining, and agriculture doesn't require much either. Our politicians are basing their policies on short-term benefits at the cost of long-term sustainability. That's the bottom-line - political lives are short and political donations drive their policies.

The Baillieus are some of the most prominent land developers around Melbourne.  As such, strategies are unlikely to change.  With this affordability impasse, they'll look to hand people more hand-outs, "open" more land for developers, and wealth will ultimately find its way back into their pockets. It is a legalised wealth transfer of public money.

Although we like to think of ourselves as civilised, we're subconsciously still driven by an evolutionary impulse for survival, domination and expansion. This is an impulse which now finds expression in the idea that inexorable economic growth is the answer to everything, and, given time, we will naturally redress all the world's existing inequalities.

However, this logic fails to recognise that the physical resources to fuel this growth are finite. We're still driven by growing and expanding, so we will use up all the oil, we will use up all the coal, “vacant” land and we will keep going till we fill the allegorical Petri dish and pollute ourselves out of existence.