Collected letters

A backlog of letters from The Age concerning environmental destruction, population growth, immigration and new PM Julia Gillard.

22/6:

Two letters on the Green Wedges, remnant volcanic grasslands now under threat from development no thanks to Brumby & Co.

Land grab stance is a pox on the two major parties

Before the 2006 election, Liberal, ALP and Greens MPs surveyed by the Green Wedges Coalition all supported the government policy to protect green wedges, “including the present boundaries”.

The uniformity of the major party responses suggested they had their respective campaign offices’ approval.

It is therefore disappointing for those who want green wedges protected for their environmental, recreational, and landscape values, open space and sustainable agriculture, to find the government proposing to move in Parliament today to amend the urban growth boundary to remove 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development, among other controversial proposals in planning scheme amendment VC67 (“Greens warn of planning changes”, The Age, 17/6).

Equally disappointing are Coalition MPs’ comments that they will not oppose this disgraceful land grab, which will destroy

4600 hectares of western basalt plains grassland, up to 900 hectares of grassy woodland (plus giant red gums) in the Merri and Darebin Creek catchments and 4000 hectares of the south-east food bowl, where productive market gardens double as southern brown bandicoot habitat.

The Greens seem to be the only party whose MPs stick to their election policies and principles. No wonder polls show their votes increasing.

– Louis Delacretaz, Sassafras

Hold our urban boundary

Thankfully, Premier John Brumby has woken up to the fact that the population boom he has created is threatening Melbourne’s liveability.

Now that he is spending $59 million to promote regional development as a more acceptable alternative to overloading the city, he surely has no need to push urban development out into the green wedges.

Let’s hope that this means Mr Brumby will now withdraw his draft planning scheme amendment VC67, which proposes to expand the urban growth boundary to take 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development.

– Arnie Azaris, joint co-ordinator, Green Wedges Coalition, Sunbury

Losing our liveability

Proposed amendments to the Planning and Environment Act to increase development around public transport networks, represent another shocking assault on Melbourne’s liveability and amenity.

With the Brumby government trying to feed the endless hunger of developers for high-rise, high-density housing, it fails to recognise that many of the train and tram lines in Melbourne are well and truly at capacity already.

If that is not bad enough, the green wedges that have been preserved for decades, to provide Melbourne’s “lungs”, will simply be sliced and diced by developers. This will have a detrimental effect on air quality for future generations.

With all this infill and loss of green wedges, open space for recreation will become a thing of the past. If these amendments are passed, our way of life and liveability will be lost for all eternity.

– Mathew Knight, Malvern East

23/6:

Region’s no answer

Distributing growth to regional cities won’t prevent further expansion into Melbourne’s urban growth boundary and nor is this a preventable solution.

The numbers of people moving to regional Victoria have always been minimal. The great majority of new arrivals to Victoria prefer to settle in Melbourne. John Brumby might think he’ll buy your vote with promises to “relieve the pressure” on Melbourne, yet - with 2000 people choosing Victoria as “the place to be” each week, most settling in Melbourne - this is a pipe dream.

If, by chance, 43,600 hectares of land within Melbourne’s growth boundary was saved from development, then 43,600 hectares of development would simply be allocated elsewhere. Don’t assume that your regional cousins want to lose their green wedges or liveability either.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

28/6:

Gillard’s firm hand

Australia’s growth rate is not “natural” but driven by immigration. People have been silenced on the issue of population growth because they might be labelled racist. This is very clever political control.

The issue is not about race but about caring for our nation, showing responsibility for future generations, balancing environmental resources, ensuring the survival of indigenous species and existing without continually stretching basic infrastructure.

Our present growth rate is about property developers’ greed. Let’s hope Julia Gillard, who has shown some common sense (“Gillard rejects ‘Big Australia’ ”, The Sunday Age, 27/6), is not overpowered by commercial forces.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Don’t blame men or motherhood

Hariklia Heristanidis (Letters, 26/6) says women with children, unlike Julia Gillard, can never have the drive and single vision to compete with men to be prime ministers. If true, is this asymmetry peculiar to the Australian psyche and way of life?

Since 1960, when Sri Lanka’s Sirimavo Bandaranaike became the world’s first female head of government, there have been more than 60 women prime ministers, presidents and heads of state, many of them mothers with young children. The widowed Mrs Bandaranaike’s children were 17, 15 and 11 when she was elected prime minister. She was prime minister three times (1960-65, 1970-77, 1994-2000) and one of her daughters (also a mother) became Sri Lanka’s first female president.

Closer to home, the first woman to occupy New Zealand’s highest office, Jenny Shipley, is a mother of two.

We shouldn’t blame men or motherhood for gender imbalance in high offices.

– Hendry Wan, Matraville, NSW

Could we please use the term “child-free” in preference to “childless”. I doubt Julia Gillard feels she is lacking anything at the moment.

– Joanna Unferdorben, Brunswick

29/6:

Slow migrant intake

Julia Gillard’s policy statement on population is thoughtful and well judged. The rate of population growth is fundamental to every aspect of public policy, from health and education to greenhouse gas emissions. Slowing population growth will ease the difficulty of ensuring availability of water, housing and rail and road transport, and constrain destruction of biodiversity.

Communities need sufficient time to absorb immigrants: the social adjustments can only be gradual. Reducing the numbers will reduce the risk of potential conflicts. One reason there is opposition to accepting the tiny number of asylum seekers is resentment about the total immigration rate. Slowing the intake of migrants would reduce the perception of competition for jobs and housing. This might contribute to greater willingness for Australia to take a fair share of refugees from violent and repressive places.

– Professor John Langmore, chairman, Anglican Public Affairs Commission

7/7:

Opening floodgates

One important fact has been overlooked by the bleeding heart do-gooders among Age readers. The main body of asylum seekers are male. What will be the first thing they do following the granting of residency? Send for their wives and other relatives. So we end up with more immigrants who have more children.

I count myself to be lucky to live in Australia, having escaped from Britain where this kind of uncontrolled immigration has wreaked havoc with services from education to health. Read the British newspapers and see what Australia could become if you shrug your shoulders and let it happen. Stating this is not being racist. It is fact.

– Anthony Toone, Hampton East

England certainly does have huge problems with immigration; the irony is the writer has, in his own words, “escaped” for a better life, just as the genuine refugees seek to. The spillover effect again.

A sustainable population is one based on natural increase, not massive immigration. Skilled people and a quota of refugees is all we should allow.

– Philip Squire, Ashgrove, Qld

8/7:

Most desperate targeted

Why all this fuss about refugees? Don’t people realise that the people who are flooding our cities, inflating our real estate values and putting strains on our community facilities are the legal immigrants: 180,000 so far this year?

Why don’t politicians mention the 50,000 overstayers who come by plane, not by boat? It is the above groups who are stressing our social and physical environment.

We certainly need a population policy for sustainable development rather than a policy of scapegoating the most desperate.

– John Addie, Ringwood East

On inane comments by the Melbourne Lord Mayor, who thinks the city’s “vigorous growth” (in reality, barely-contained chaos) is a good thing:

Doyle is dreaming

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, like all proponents of a larger Australia, uses emotive words such as “vigorous” (The Age, 4/7), which is supposed to conjure images of this wonderful, youthful-energy-filled utopia that will overcome an ageing population and a lack of skills.

In reality, what you will have is overcrowding on a Third World level, increased crime, shortage of housing, unsustainable rents, water restrictions, a filthy city (look at any sprawling metropolis overseas) and horrendous traffic jams.

As a frequent visitor, I can attest that it is easier and quicker to drive around Sydney.

– Warwick Kent, South Cronulla, NSW

Vanishing bushland

“Freeway builders admit damage to wetlands area”, The Age, 8/7. The Frankston Bypass, mentioned in my 12/1/2010 entry, is continuing construction despite protests, and the incompetent builders managed to raze part of a wetlands reserve. One wonders if this were done “accidentally on purpose”. One can only feel frustration and anger at the Brumby Government’s maniacal obsession with building roads no matter how this damages the environment.

9/7:

Mindless vandalism

The mindless and unwarranted destruction of the significant heritage value and vegetation on the Westerfield property (The Age, 8/7), despite advice from environmental and conservation bodies regarding its importance, highlights the state government’s political expediency and short-term economic priorities.

If a tunnel had been included in the Frankston bypass project, the permanent damage now being carried out could have been avoided. More freeways carrying more motorised vehicles is not an acceptable excuse for this irresponsible environmental vandalism.

– Gloria O’Connor, Pakenham Upper

Picket Westerfields

All Victorians should picket the Westerfields reserve. This beautiful area of bushland belongs to all of us. The politicians have signed a deal and created a bill to deliver freeways that will deprive our children of our last suburban wild places.

– Yasmin Kelsall, Brunswick

10/7:

An act of vandalism

Victoria’s natural and cultural heritage is again in serious peril, this time from the construction of the Frankston bypass. A valuable wetland has been recklessly bulldozed by the private developers, Abigroup (The Age, 8/7). Under threat is Westerfield property, a state heritage-listed bushland sanctuary. With Linking Melbourne Authority’s approval, Abigroup is preparing to raze Westerfield before Heritage Victoria decides on an appeal to save it. Given that Westerfield could be preserved by tunnelling underneath, it is perplexing that our state government approved this vandalism.

Rather than monitor and enforce environmental protection standards for infrastructure projects, John Brumby and his ministers remain silent.

The government must act to ensure other nature reserves to be bulldozed soon for freeways, such as the Pines and Coomoora Woodland Flora and Fauna Reserves, do not suffer the same fate as those already destroyed. If not, may it be consigned to the dustbin of electoral history.

– Damon Anderson, Keysborough

Save our bushland

An astonishing treasure, Westerfield,is about to be bulldozed and it seems that few people know about it. It is remnant bushland in its original state with a diverse population of native mammals and birds, 45 minutes from the city, near Frankston. Why is it about to be destroyed? To create another giant road to get to places on the Mornington Peninsula already served by excellent freeways, highways, and all manner of roads. Once destroyed, this unique habitat cannot be replaced. Even on the peninsula itself there are very few places left of such significance. Is this the choice that we as a society want to make?

– Cecilia Cairns and Frank Burden, Carlton North

Perhaps they should resort to tactics such as those utilized by the Earth Liberation Front – nothing else is stopping the developer vandals.

Collected letters

Herald-Sun, 7/7:

Birthrate the main culprit

The credibility of those who joyfully welcome the arrival of new members to their own families, yet oppose the influx of asylum seekers on the basis of a perceived ensuing strain on Australia’s resources, is untenable.

If increasing population levels are indeed stressing infrastructural sustainability, then the national birthrate is the chief culprit, as this is much higher than the modest rate of asylum seekers coming here.

Such a mindset, which celebrates a home-grown “happy event” while decrying the entry of often desperate boat people to these shores, betrays its own thoughtless selfishness and cultural prejudices.

– Co Purssey, Elstemwick

Overstayers the real concern

I would like to see the media present the facts about who we should let into our country.

It is not well known that, as a signatory to a United Nations convention, Australia has an obligation to accept people seeking asylum until they are found not to have a genuine case. The real illegals are backpackers and other holiday-makers who overstay their visas.

There are many more of them than asylum seekers, and yet we seem to tolerate their presence.

If today’s leaders led us on this issue, as Malcolm Fraser did with boat people from Vietnam, we could have some real debate.

– Helen Perela, West Heidelberg

8/7:

Too many people in crowded house

I will review my position re garding immigration and asylum seekers when I can have a shower without worrying about how much water I use, turn on a light and not worry about the cost of electricity, turn on a heater with out worrying about the cost of gas and when I can go out without worrying about getting bashed.

It suits the Government to hold an election at the drop of a hat when it gives them an advantage at the polls.

Let’s see if they have the same attitude in terms of holding a referendum about increasing the Australian population.

– Grant McKay, Pakenharn

Legal migrants do more damage

Why all this fuss about refugees? Don’t people realise that the people who are flooding our cities, inflating our real estate values and putting strains on our community facilities are the legal immigrants — 180,000 so far this year?

Why don’t politicians mention the 50,000 overstayers who come by plane, not by boat? Why not mention the uncontrolled access to Australia by New Zealanders?

It is the above groups who are overstressing our social and physical environment.

We certainly need a population policy for sustainable development rather than a policy of scapegoating the most desperate.

In any case refugees do not threaten our jobs: rather they will do the work that we do not want to do, just as poor migrants do all round the world.

– John Addle, Ringwood East

Victims of growth

Two examples of how human population growth is negatively impacting native fauna in Australia (who arguably have more right to the land than the foreign-born or -descended humans who now inhabit it).

“Fears cassowary may vanish”, The Age, 24/6. The habitat of endangered Cassowary birds in North Queensland is under threat from housing. This only adds to my hatred of greedy property developers and the politicians who give them free rein.

“Roo culling wrong, protesters say”, 7/7. Grey kangaroos are being shot for the annual cull in Canberra. Why?

The ACT’s parks director Russell Watkinson said culling was necessary to protect the environment.

“We have an overabundant number of eastern grey kangaroos,” he said, adding they were overpopulating areas after being hemmed in reserves because of urban development.

“The kangaroos are grazing the habitats of rare and endangered species down to bare earth.”

Start culling the humans who are overpopulating the area, instead!

Sometimes I imagine aliens visiting Earth and deciding to cull the human population for the exact same reasons as given in that article (replace the word “kangaroos” with “humans”). This would be a sort of cosmic karma!

First female (childfree) PM

Haven’t felt like writing due to the usual frustration and despair, so I have accumulated another backlog of articles.

So Australia has a new Prime Minister, and the first woman PM, at least until the actual Federal Election sometime this year. Julia Gillard is unmarried (she has a partner) and childless by choice, which is certainly a first for a national leader

“I wasn’t someone who in my teenage years or even in my 20s was saying the big thing I want to do in life is have kids.”

[…]

Her childless status has been scorned by political opponents, with Liberal senator Bill Heffernan sparking a storm in 2007 by saying she was “deliberately barren” and therefore unqualified to run the country.

And barely a day had passed when a letter was printed bemoaning the fact she wasn’t a mother:

I’ll cheer when a mother is PM

I can well imagine the conversations around the water cooler yesterday; certainly all the women on Facebook are thrilled that a woman has been elected prime minister. Childless women are incredulous that Julia Gillard has been elected despite being unmarried and childless. Those of us with children are perhaps less surprised.

I would consider it more of an achievement if she had children and been made prime minister, because a woman with children, to some extent, can never have the drive and single vision to compete with a man for such a position.

A man who is a “success” will have a supportive partner, who is caring for his children as only another parent can, while he climbs the ladder of success. How rare for a career woman to get that same level of support.

I’m not blaming men. Women such as Gillard are unlikely to choose a partner who is content to stay home with children, or work part time around school drop-off and pick-up. I accept that motherhood is not for everyone, but the day a mother is elected as prime minister is the day I will celebrate true equality.

– Hariklia Heristanidis, Malvern East

The writer evidently didn’t read Julia’s remark about not wanting children. And if a childless man had similarly been elected, would he get such criticism?

Of interest is that the PM said that she was against a “Big Australia”, in an obvious rebuke to Kevin Rudd’s earlier statement. Unfortunately one of the major election issues is that of asylum seekers (“boat people”), who are a relatively small part of Australia’s immigration intake, rather than the huge numbers coming in via legal immigration (e.g. to work here) and the high birthrate. An example is given in the article “Skilling time: migrants wait for lucky break”, mentioning couples from various countries immigrating to Australia (some reluctantly because of separation from family and culture).

Ms Arori, who is expecting a baby next month, said: “In our country [India], there are opportunities but we were not getting them. It was very difficult to survive over there.”

A main reason there is lack of opportunity in India, the UK and other countries mentioned is that all have high populations! Thus there is huge competition for limited jobs. This is an example of the spillover effect – people leaving one country for one with perceived better opportunities, but in turn the population of Australia is growing and people here are now facing the same problem, thus inciting resentment against migrants. If Australia’s population becomes huge, there is nowhere else for its citizens to go (assuming other countries keep growing also).

(I might note that I am not against immigration as such – my Dad is a UK immigrant, for one thing – but am against excessive immigration.)

“The PM’s dilemma: letting the ‘right’ people in”, The Age, 4/7. More details of what Julia will have to deal with if she wishes to slow growth. Whether she is serious about this – or just pandering to voters before an election – is unclear.

But when Gillard says she does not support the idea of a “big Australia”, what exactly does she intend to do about it? In broad terms, she has two options: either convince people to have fewer kids or cut migration by issuing fewer student, permanent or temporary visas.

The government is hardly going to start discouraging the former, given a number of its policies are designed to do exactly the opposite. Anyway, it is migration that has mainly been driving the population increase.

So if our new PM is serious about wanting to avoid a big Australia, the only realistic option is to slash our annual intake. That will in turn mean accepting lower rates of economic growth. It will also mean angering business groups. For years, migration has underpinned the economy by plugging skills shortages while fuelling construction and consumer spending.

We should be cutting the birth rate as well (abolish the baby bonus!) – Australia has one of the highest in the developed world, which is certainly nothing to be proud of, and sets a poor example to developing countries.

Businessman Dick Smith was delighted with the PM’s statements. I seriously want to shake his hand, or something! He doesn’t appear to have a personal website, though.