Collected letters

A selection of letters from The Age, most on the planning issues mentioned in my previous entry.

Land grab

If there is one job occupation I have come to loathe and despise above all others, it is that of property developer. Opportunistic scum who care nothing for the environment or sensitive architectural design and are only out to make a profit – I would like to see them rounded up and burned at the stake! My neighborhood, like nearly all others, is being ruined by developers buying up homes, razing them and their established gardens and building enormous eye-gougingly-ugly monstrosities (I have a website page about this). On a wider scale, the open land around Melbourne is being concreted over with new housing developments by developers; this has future implications for food security (prime farmland being built over) and the environment (the loss of vegetation). The city is growing like a metastasising cancer and nothing is being done to stop it – yet again, population growth is the prime cause of this.

Some articles from The Age on this topic:

“In defence of the suburbs”, 12/10/2010. The loss of backyards barely rates a mention in urban policy, but they provide valuable room for vegetation and wildlife.

“State's boom on ‘shaky ground’ ”, 28/10/2010. Victoria’s recent growth has been due to population growth and construction – neither of which can be sustained indefinitely. “But the researchers warn this population increase to approximately 90,000 people coming to Melbourne each year has ‘led to delusions of endless growth’ within the Brumby government and the business community.” And residents are paying for this dearly as quality of life degrades.

“Developers scramble for land”, 6/11/2010. Developers are greedily buying the land released by the expansion of the urban growth boundary. “RMIT associate professor of planning Michael Buxton said sprawling cities were energy-consuming, economically inefficient, environmentally destructive and led to social polarisation. ‘The Victorian government has abandoned planning and is handing the city over to developers,’ he said.”

“Growing pains: Victoria’s population explosion”, 20/11/2010. An overview of why Victoria has had so much growth. The author regards it as a positive. I certainly don’t – being popular is not a good thing in this case as it is making life increasingly stressful for residents.

“Labor’s high-rise dystopia”, 24/11/2010. One reason that the Labor government was voted in was that they promised to discard Jeff Kennett’s free-for-all urban planning. But they well and truly reneged on that promise, and proved to be just as bad as the Liberals in favoring developers.

“Design trend takes child’s play out of backyards”, 25/11/2010. As house sizes have increased, backyards have all but vanished. Playing in the backyard was one of my favorite activities when young.

“Land shortage, price hike link a myth, claims academic”, 6/12/2010. Claims by developers that more houses need to be built because of shortages are misleading; the main factors are negative gearing that favors investors, readily-available home loans and the first home owners’ grant are factors.

“Planning must be for people, not developers”, 6/12/2010. Both the Kennett and Bracks-Brumby governments were influenced in planning policy by developers, who donated to both parties (a law should be brought against this!). Unfortunately the new Premier Ted Baillieu is also developer-friendly, so the ruination of Melbourne and its surrounding lands looks to continue.

“Melbourne heads north to Kalkallo”, 8/12/2010. More of the depressing same. Future generations are going to curse us.

Deceptive advertising

Haven’t been posting a while for the usual reasons, so I have another backlog of articles. I just get so frustrated that so many people, including those in power, are in denial about the population issue.

Found an organization, PopDev, through a blog entry. At first glance they appear to be concerned about population growth, but reading through it reveals they are more the opposite – namely that growth is not the issue, that population control is a violation of reproductive “rights”, that starvation is caused by unequal food distribution rather than numbers, that sterilization is eugenics by stealth, opposing excessive immigration is racist, and so on with the usual fallacious arguments. Groups like this are just as bad as the more blatant growth advocates such as those in business and politics. The blog entry itself, by some female, predictably associates opposition to excessive immigration with racism. I have come to loathe many leftist/liberal/feminist women because of such views, which are diametrically opposed to mine (though I consider myself feminist and liberal in some other areas) – see my 4/2/2010 entry.

Anti-growth push

A grassroots movement against population growth has emerged as more people feel free to debate immigration without being called racists, says a new study. Up to 87 per cent of Australians now reject further growth, according to an analysis of opinion polls by Swinburne University sociologist Katharine Betts. Growing concern over crowded cities and environmental damage had led to a new openness in discussing population, she said. Dr Betts said the latest polls showed that between 50 and 87 per cent of Australians wanted an end to growth. Her study will be released today in People and Place, the journal of Monash University’s Centre for Population and Urban Research. (Herald-Sun, 1/11/2010)

“Big families damage Australia – survey”, H-S, 27/10/2010. One in 3 Australians in a survey think that families should limit the number of children they have to minimize environmental impact. The informal website vote, though, indicates more out of the 476 who voted think the opposite.

“Stem the population growth – Australia’s already full”, Advertiser, 5/11/2010. Interview with Professor Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. He says that the general public is more aware of population-caused problems than politicians and businesses.

“Aboriginal population booms”, 26/9/2010. I have mixed feelings about this: it’s good that their culture is not dying out (as was though it would in more racist times decades ago), but alarming that so many younger people (teenagers) are falling pregnant, with the attendent social problems – I doubt they would have education/access to birth control in remote communities. Given the neglect of Aboriginal health in general, I suppose it’s not surprising.

“Foreign investors buy up Australian land”, Yahoo News, 15/11/2010. Of food security concern is the ownership of agricultural land by foreign businesses. Perhaps if things get dire the government could seize back the land – they should take responsibility for their own food supplies and not expect to be able to strip other countries for these (again, population growth is a cause of this).

“PM has to think big on population, warns Treasury”, 14/11/2010. With dreary inevitability it looks as though the Prime Minister will not hold to her election promise of reviewing Australia’s population policy. A big Australia is not inevitable; the government could take measures to restrict growth.

Environmental atrocity

The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve has been decimated as the Frankston Bypass freeway construction now cuts through the once-pristine bushland. A photo gallery documents the destruction; it is a depressing sight. Two photos below show before and a simulated after (once the freeway is built):

Shame, shame, shame on this heartless uncaring government. Its environmental credentials are a farce. Australia’s disgraceful record of environmental destruction continues unabated (another example is the logging of old-growth forests in Victoria). Some letters in response below:

7/8:

Paradise paved over

John Brumby pledged last week to cut Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 through cleaner power generation (The Age, 26/7).

Simultaneously his government signs contracts to construct more freeways, which will increase carbon emissions. In the process the historic Westerfield sanctuary and Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve for the Frankston Bypass, and Coomoora Woodland Reserve for the Dingley Arterial will be sacrificed. Yet in each case there is a viable alternative route that would preserve these invaluable environmental assets.

Why set a target to cut emissions, but authorise the destruction of natural carbon sinks. Is the Premier genuine or just a pretender, creating a smokescreen for short-sighted and unsustainable development by setting a long-term target for which he will never be held accountable? Even if emissions are eventually contained, what natural heritage will be left for future generations to enjoy once paradise has been fully paved?

– Damon Anderson, Keysborough

30/9:

Dark day as state shows its might

To say Tuesday was a sad day for democracy and for the environment is an understatement. But it is hard to adequately express the significance of the freeway protesters’ defeat at Westerfield, near Frankston (“Police arrest freeway protesters”, The Age, 29/9).

That 100 police are brought in to subdue protesters sends a message that no matter what people do to protect what they value, the state will bring in stronger forces to overpower them.

At that point there is nothing further that citizens can do to protect their environment and the only reasonable reaction is despair. A disengaged populace without hope fits best into the Brumby government’s “plan”.

– Jill Quirk, Malvern East

No more softly, softly

The Brumby government will not tolerate any interference with Peninsula Link freeway plans, even if it means the compulsory acquisition and destruction of pristine, privately owned, heritage-listed bushland complete with endangered species of fauna and flora.

This was carried out before a VCAT hearing pertaining to the historic site.

I was witness to the extraordinary events at the Westerfield site on Tuesday, when 100 or more police, including mounted police, arrived on the site equipped in riot gear, ready to defend construction workers against a tiny group of peaceful protesters, many of whom were in their 60s or over.

It appears that since former chief commissioner Christine Nixon retired, the era of softly softly “community policing” is over. We are well and truly back in the strong-arm-of-the-law era of the Kennett government.

– Rod Binnington, Brighton

No trust for Pallas

Roads Minister Tim Pallas should resign. Last week he assured the protesters that the bulldozing would not go ahead until the VCAT ruling was handed down.

On Tuesday, Mr Pallas suddenly switched. It is shameful when a minister of the state cannot be trusted.

These incredible protesters have picketed this area all through the cold winter. They deserve medals; instead they are arrested.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash, Camberwell

Bullying shifts south-east

John Brumby, not satisfied with bullying Footscray residents affected by the $4.3 billion new rail line, from Southern Cross through Footscray to Little River, now bullies southern pensioners and retirees.

Mr Brumby’s message to residents in the west that the new rail line will go ahead regardless of the findings of any study on its impact on residents and the environment reeks of the bully-boy tactics well practised by his government.

Charging in to break up the Westerfield picket line, manned by locals in their senior years, is the latest new low for this government. Once again, Brumby’s mantra – regardless of residents and the environment – wins the day, but perhaps not the next state election.

– Darlene Reilly, Sunshine

3/10:

Biting the hand

If the ALP want to win votes from the Greens (“What’s eating Labor”, 19/9) they should not have bulldozed the Westerfield heritage bushland last week. And they should not bulldoze the environmentally significant Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve (also in the Peninsula Link reservation at Frankston) or the Coomoora woodland.

Nor should they be dreaming of putting a north-east link freeway through the Yarra Flats at Banyule. Nor should they have voted, with Coalition support, to take 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development.

– Rosemary West, Edithvale

4/10:

Woodland lost, questions remain

State Roads Minister Tim Pallas justifies destruction of the Westerfield property’s heritage bushland to construct the Peninsula Link freeway with the claim that “work commenced in this area with all the necessary heritage and environmental approvals and permits in place following extensive planning” (Letters, 2/10).

Wrong, Mr Pallas. You must surely be aware that VCAT – our civil justice court – is hearing questions as to why native vegetation is being cleared from the site before “vegetation offsets” have been secured to comply with Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management Framework (“vegetation offsets” provide like-for-like vegetation at another location in lieu of that to be destroyed).

Westerfield’s rare and pristine “grassy woodland”, which has been destroyed in 48 hours, should have had the question of offsets resolved before clearing of any vegetation. The government should follow due process and not change soundly based laws that protect our environment.

– Joyce and Simon Welsh, Westerfield, Frankston

We are misinformed

Tim Pallas’s claim that the heritage-listed Westerfield land was available for clearing in June is misleading. Heritage Victoria’s final decision regarding the property was handed down on July 28. An appeal committee found the initial approval of March 17 was flawed. Final approval was given on September 9, meaning that if work was started in June it would have been without the necessary approval of Heritage Victoria.

There is a history of misinformation. In August 2007, Mr Pallas announced the statutory offsets for native vegetation cleared for EastLink and claimed that a parcel of land in Langwarrin was “now Crown land”. This statement was false then and remains so now, despite the law that these matters are to be finalised 12 months after construction starts.

The land remains in private hands and the $600,000 payment for its improvement remains in limbo, pending a planning scheme amendment and its subdivision from a larger site.

There are laws that govern the preservation of our landscape and heritage and norms that apply to truth and sound governance. These laws and norms have been treated with contempt.

– Jim Kerin, Frankston

(I also posted this at Avatar-Forums.com.)

8 million too many

“Time for Melbourne to think about its population surge”, Herald-Sun, 19/10. An alarming prediction that a population of 8 million in Melbourne is inevitable by 2060. A “business think-tank” is promoting such growth.

Committee for Melbourne chief executive Andrew MacLeod said a doubling of Melbourne’s population over the next 50 years was a “normal” rate of growth. He slammed suggestions the city’s population spurt should be capped, rejecting arguments by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and activist Dick Smith that Australia didn’t have the infrastructure to cope. A population cap was one of the “greatest threats” to Melbourne’s future as it would allow governments turn a blind eye to the reality of growth.

Well he is deluded (and greedy) – a lot of residents don’t want such a huge population as the city is under serious strain from its current numbers. Growth is not inevitable; governments have it in their power to contain it. Excessive growth is by far a greater threat to Melbourne’s future livability.

Demographer Bernard Salt also weighs in with his usual inane generalizations – does anyone take him seriously?

H-S letter, 20/10:

I have a question for Bernard Salt, who says Melbourne has the capacity to double in size.

London and Paris may have eight million people now, but what do they also have?

Answer: brilliant metros, undergrounds and vast, efficient commuter rail lines (plus lots of water).

They also have thousands of unhappy people trying to emigrate to Australia. Go figure.

– Sheila Walkington, Mornington

“Plan for hundreds of kilometres of new freeways”, The Age, 11/10. Governments seem to be obsessed with building roads, and the current State Government is no exception. This proposed plan will scar the landscape with yet more freeways, adding to pollution and will not lessen traffic congestion. There seems to be no enthusiasm for building railways instead, which would have less environmental impact.

“The Yarra monster is killing us”, 23/8. Melbourne (and Sydney) are sucking up resources.

“Melbourne is a parasite economy,” says Bob Birrell, the doyen of immigration and population studies in Australia. “Increasingly, the fiscal dividend from Australia’s mineral boom is having to be distributed to Victoria to pay for the needs of Melbourne’s population boom. That’s why the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, is constantly having to go cap-in-hand to the federal government for assistance.”

But the mining boom involves scarring the landscape with open-cut mines to strip the land of minerals, so it is parasitical in its own way. Both types of economies are unsustainable and environmentally damaging in the long term.

• Labor’s immigration net intake of 270,000 people last year drove a multiplicity of stresses, which forced the “big Australia” debate:
• By far the greatest beneficiaries of high immigration are the immigrants, not the resident population.
• High immigration lowers per capita productivity growth, a key to sustainable growth.
• It retards the growth of per capita wealth. It accelerates the rate of food importation. (Australia imported a record $8.5 billion worth of food in 2008-09.)
• It accelerates the increase in urban overcrowding and traffic congestion.
• It increases Australia’s greenhouse emissions, per capita.
• It makes it unlikely Australia can meet its targets of greenhouse gas emission reduction.
• It lowers Australia’s food security.

In short, there is nothing good about high immigration rates.

Collected letters

A collection of letters from The Age:

6/8:

Proponents must prove benefits

I agree with Ross Gittins (“Stop beating about bush and talk about Big Australia”, 4/8). Bipartisanship on immigration has prevented Australia from having a formal population policy.

The size and rapidity of Australia’s population growth affects just about every aspect of Australian quality of life. Australia should have a population policy explicitly setting out a range of options for long-term population change, as recommended by the 1994 federal parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s carrying capacity.

The inquiry noted that every increase in population imposed extra environmental and social costs. It therefore recommended that proponents of radical change to immigration policy should bear the burden of proof in showing what policies they intended to adopt with respect to consequential impacts of the population changes.

The case for a big Australia has neither been heard nor answered.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

Rampant development

The doubling of Melbourne’s population in the next 50 years would be disastrous for the city. Already our planning schemes are gearing up for such a population explosion with rampant high-rise development, the development of arterial tunnels, towers competing for views and light and the over-redevelopment of supposedly heritage infrastructure. What does this do for the quality of life in our city?

The Committee of Melbourne’s criticism of current planning may have some merit. However, reform should focus on the need to increase the certainty of current stakeholders – resident and business – that their suburbs will not be subject to excessive upheaval, and, not, in allowing uncontrolled wholesale redevelopment for suspect reasons, by greedy developers in concert with our political elites.

The “hurt” to Melbourne will come from excessive redevelopment, not from failure to double our population. There may be some scope for increasing density, but let it be done sensitively, without the wanton destruction of neighbourhood character and community, as well as in a way that protects our cultural heritage.

Hopefully, The Age will use its membership of this group to ameliorate the committee’s unsustainable views.

– Bill Cook, West Melbourne

Ponzi-style mentality

The Committee for Melbourne describes an 8 million population for Melbourne as part of “normal growth”. It is crystal clear that most residents are against our ballooning population yet business keeps pressing for more.

The argument that we need more people to fund the retirement of our ageing population has at its foundation a Ponzi-style mentality that we need ever more consuming units to support the existing. The accepted wisdom of never-ending growth is also a nonsense on a finite, overpopulated planet that implies a magic pudding of resources where everyone can aspire to a Western lifestyle without leaving the earth a barren shell.

I pity the other creatures trying to eke out an existence on this planet.

– Chris Owens, Lysterfield South

14/8:

Population

Dick Smith, you ripper. Populate and perish.

– Peter Liston, Southbank

Bravo Dick Smith. With every environmental indicator going south, someone is finally pointing out the bleeding obvious to our politicians.

– Ian Johnston, Boronia

Sustainable growth is the ultimate oxymoron, whether it is an ever-increasing population or extraction of finite resources. Anyone with a basic science background can see the problem. If only such people existed in our Parliament.

– David Blair, Healesville

5/9:

Too many to save

Asylum seeker/refugee advocate Marilyn Shepherd believes every person in the world fleeing internal conflicts has the “absolute right” to enter Australia. I would hope our own government would be the only authority with this absolute right to decide who comes into our country .

The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants World Refugee Survey 2009 put the total number of refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2008 at 13.6 million. Does Ms Shepherd suggest adopting an open door policy similar to many countries in Europe, which now face the huge social problems their relaxed attitude has caused.

The Iraqi and Afghan asylum seekers Ms Shepherd refers to could easily be resettled in the many neighbouring countries, all of which have similar language and culture – more practical than travelling all the way to Australia.

– Michael Burd, Toorak

10/9: This letter comments on a worrying trend of foreign companies quietly buying up land and water in Australia for their own food security. Why is the government allowing this? If the environmental situation gets dire, I hope the government will seize back the land in the interests of national security.

Tackle regional fire sale

The independents, who profess great concern for regional Australia, should now turn their attention to the accelerating takeover of regional Australia by foreign interests. At what point does foreign “investment” morph into a land/water-rush and handover of Australian control over basic land and water patrimony to foreign control? Are land/water reverse “investments” permitted in other nations? Are we being manipulated by overseas interests? Should farmers be routinely outbid at property sales by cashed-up foreign consortiums? Should there be tripartisan policy, with direct input from a concerned electorate?

Off the political radar is any public register of accelerating acquisitions of land and water rights by China, Singapore, Malaysia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, US and Europe to feed their own growing populations in a world adding an unprecedented four Australias each year.

Come on, Messrs Windsor, Oakeshott, Katter, or any politician concerned at regional Australia’s fire sale: demand answers to these vital questions.

– John O’Connor, Cottles Bridge

Bad decision

“Ageing China flags truce in one-child revolution”, The Age, 13/9. Some dismaying news that China is easing its 1-child policy because of alarm over who will look after their aging population. Perhaps they should consider alternatives such as developing helper robots. Their population is still growing, however:

By 2050 India is expected to have grown to 1.75 billion people compared with China’s 1.44 billion, according to the Population Reference Bureau. China’s population is now 1.34 billion and India’s 1.19 billion.

Ideally, I would like to see a 2-child policy implemented worldwide – but that would require a dictatorial world government to reinforce.

“Nation fertile ground for IVF”, Herald-Sun. IVF treatments in Australia are on the increase. I am adamantly against government funding for this procedure (on Medicare) and this should be abolished, though there would be an outcry as people get irrational when it comes to reproduction. There is no intrinsic “right” to IVF. With the world being already overpopulated, more people should not be created artificially.

“Strict curbs on IVF treatment a must, says Susie O’Brien”, H-S, 11/5. The taxpayer-funded treatment is being abused and should be reined in.

It’s made me realise that having babies through IVF is fast being regarded as a right, not a privilege. And this makes me profoundly uneasy.

[…]

And take the case of Victorian woman Kimberley Castles, who is serving three years in a minimum security jail for welfare fraud, and who is pushing to get IVF in jail. She has only seven months left before she turns 46 and becomes ineligible for in vitro fertilisation treatment. Although I don’t think any human rights should be denied to people in jail, this is one privilege that should not be granted to Castles.

Unfortunately the IVF was granted to her – despite her already having 2 children – because denying her treatment (and justly so, in my view) was a breach of her “rights”. What bullshit! There is no intrinsic “right” to reproduce, and certainly not at taxpayers’ expense while incarcerated, as in her case. In this society there is too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibilities.

“Big fall in IVF attempts as cost soars”, The Age, 13/8.

But instead they had increased the proportion of the total cost met directly by people seeking the treatment, said Sandra Dill, chief executive of the patient group Access Australia Infertility Network. “There are 1000 babies that won’t be born,” she said. “It’s not as if IVF’s a hit-and-miss thing. It’s highly successful.”

1000 people who won’t exist in an overpopulated world – that is a good thing!

Collected letters

A selection of letters from The Age, most on the planning issues mentioned in my previous entry.

Arrogant architect

“A contrarian with a big idea for mankind”, The Age, 14/8 (scanned in as I could not find the article online). The architect profiled here, Austin Williams, surely is the embodiment of arrogance and hubris, and reinforces my general dislike of his profession. His attitude is still prevalent amongst business and governments.

The British architect is a firm believer in global population growth and disdainful of the green building movement. Where many see hopelessness in huge slums, he sees hope.

Architect Austin Williams is one person among 6.8 billion, The size of the world’s population alarms some people, particularly in light of the planet’s finite resources, but Williams champions growth, seeing in it increased opportunities to transform the world to our benefit.

“For me the enlightened response to population growth is to celebrate it,” the London-based architect and author says. “More people is a good thing: the more we attach value to humanity the more human we become.”

He has the mindset that human ingenuity and “cleverness” can somehow overcome any problems caused by such growth. Not always! Trying to engineer one’s way out can sometimes lead to worse problems in the future, causing inadvertent enviromental disasters (dams are one example).

With assertive rhetoric about architects moulding the world according to their own aesthetic values, ManTowNHuman reads at times like the brainchild of a bunch of arrogant architects who have taken a leaf out of Ayn Rand’s individualist novel The Fountainhead.

That is the most accurate paragraph in the whole article.

Williams and his colleagues were not merely playing agents provocateurs in attacking sustainable design. “The fact that I found so many people reciting the mantra of sustainability without even questioning its meaning alerted me to its political problems,” he says. He saw in the “mantra of sustainability” the pernicious idea that people’s presence in the natural world is problematic. “Seeing the enviromnent as sacrosanct and humanity as somehow despoiling it is anti-human, in as much as it puts nature first and puts humanity second,” he says.

Without a liveable environment, humanity will cease to exist. We are not independent of nature, no matter how some try to pretend otherwise.

Williams deplores this kind of “miserablist” take. Where many see hopelessness in the huge slums of Mumbai or Lagos, he sees hope, and evidence of humanity’s great march of progress in action.

“You go to Lagos, they are living in utter squalor. However, even within the squalor there’s a potential for them to create industy and experience the ambition to get out of squalor,” he says. Even without effective government planning or adequate infrastructure, Lagos is developing as people work to improve their lives. It’s the same in other Third World slums.

How many will manage to escape their poverty, though? Slums are miserably unhealthy places to grow up in, and romanticizing them does the inhabitants no favors.

He says we are fortunate to be able to debate desirability of growth – and the problems it creates, such as congestion and sprawl – from a position of strength.

“Cities grow. That’s what they do… [But] you have some of the world’s most liveable cities.”

Australia’s cities are liveable because of their low population density. Unfortunately, that is changing due to uncontrolled growth. And governments are almost never able to provide adequate infrastructure to cope – they are continually trying to catch up, and never quite manage to (my state of Victoria being one example).

Resolving the issues of population, cities and housing is not easy, but we have the ingenuity to do it: “I see humanity as a source of fantastic creativity and potential, a source of wonder that has made the world today.”

Ruined the world today, more like. No point arguing with him, though – he is utterly convinced of his rightness. We hope that some day he will be made to eat his words.

Myopic fools

“City to ‘grow’ 134,000 homes on farmland”, The Age, 30/7. I was infuriated enough to send a letter to the paper, but so far it hasn’t been published:

The Brumby Government and Opposition have demonstrated that they are nothing but environmental vandals in thrall to greedy developers by allowing expansion of Melbourne’s urban boundaries. Their short-sighted stupidity of allowing more open farmland to vanish under housing just beggars belief, as it threatens the city’s future food security and will increase pollution.

Letters in response:

31/7:

Victorians a rum lot

Well, it’s official. As we have suspected, state planning is not informed by sound policy and community interest but by big developers.

Liberal and Labor MPs have agreed to cover more than 4000 hectares of our highly productive horticultural land with tar and cement (“Green land cut back as Melbourne grows much, much bigger”, Online, 29/7)

So much for “allow[ing] time to assess the social conditions in new communities on the perimeter of the city” (“Gazing beyond the fringe”, The Age, 6/1).

So much for the advice of Australian agriculture, energy and environment specialist Julian Cribb, who believes we must stop building on arable land because future worldwide food shortages will make even climate change pale into insignificance by comparison.

Out with commonsense and democracy and in with political expediency. If it’s true we get the government we deserve, Victorians must be a rum lot.

– Rosalie Counsell, Harkaway

Housing on urban fringes is not cheap

The state government and the opposition are deluded in believing that housing on our urban fringes is cheap. Most of this proposed housing development is kilometres from train lines, and buses, where available, are slow and infrequent.

Casey and Manningham are examples of municipalities where families average more than two cars to get to work, schools, shopping, health and recreation services. The cost of running even two cars in the outer and fringe suburbs is $400,000 over 20 years; three cars is $600,000, according to our national motoring organisations. These costs will rise as oil prices increase and governments impose emission taxes.

Another cost the government and opposition have forgotten is the $100 billion required to service 134,000 new dwellings, mostly from the public purse. No wonder the land bankers and political donors are laughing.

– Brian Buckley, North Carlton

Some earlier collected letters:

11/7:

Big isn’t better

Regarding “Size does matter, Doyle tells PM” (4/7): Cr. Doyle stated “Sydney and New South Wales are losing people”. This is not the case. Sydney continues to grow at 50,000 people a year, according to the ABS. Perhaps the councillor means Sydney is not growing as fast as Melbourne. If the councillor sees the population rates of the cities as a competition, I am happy to have Melbourne win! Who wants higher density, less public space and fewer resources per person?

– Nicholas Car, Hornsby

Crowding not the answer

Melbourne’s lord mayor, Robert Doyle, argues for the inevitability of population growth.

Overseas immigration contributes nearly two-thirds of national population growth and can be changed almost instantly by federal ministerial decision. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about immigration-fuelled population growth.

Population growth benefits the few while the vast majority pay the costs in reduced housing affordability, congestion and pollution.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

14/7:

Population reform

Tim Colebatch’s article (The Age, 13/7) on Australia’s complementary problems of involuntary under-employment and our skills shortage is a valuable contribution to the public debate on population policy.

I endorse Labor MP Kelvin Thomson’s 14-point plan for population reform. Components include increased funding to tertiary and vocational education, while reducing skilled immigration, and funded by the nearly $3 billion that could be saved by ceasing the baby bonus and limiting child support payments to only the first two children of any couple.

– Kit James, Melbourne

28/7:

Why small is better

In the long term, freeways and buildings are not important. Our quality of life depends on good health, education, access to housing, open space and a healthy environment. The money spent on resource-sapping infrastructure for rampant population growth would be better invested in providing better quality services for a smaller number of people.

– Jennie Epstein, Little River

27/9:

Inequitable scheme

My wife is due to have our third child in January. She recently went back to work after taking unpaid maternity leave after the birth of our second child.

Under the government’s paid parental leave scheme, she will not be eligible for any payment. The rules state: “The primary carer must be in paid work and have been engaged in work continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months prior to the expected birth or adoption of the child, and undertaken at least 330 hours of paid work in the 10 month period”.

While I appreciate the need for such rules, they exclude families such as mine where our only error was to have our children too close together. Other than to take maternity leave, my wife has worked full-time and continuously since completing her education.

– Richard Morris, Viewbank

[If you are having financial trouble, why the hell are you having a third child? You are selfish in expecting government handouts to support this.]

Mr. Abbott, some single, childless people – even women – know what a struggle it is to raise a mortgage and pay grocery bills.

– Patricia Watkinson, Hawthorn East

H-S, 25/7:

City has become too clogged

Several years ago I bemoaned the loss of parkland as grand sporting blots on the landscape were developed to the southeast of the city.

Now it’s even worse. Once you could see the river from Flinders St. Once you could see the river and the city from the Bolte Bridge. Once I felt comfortable in the city.

No more.

You ask why there is an increase in crime in the city? I would suggest that the systematic enclosure of a once-proud and open city is partly to fault. Let there be space and let us cherish that space.

Australia is not Singapore or Hong Kong, but our decision-makers are trying to make us exactly that, and I resent and reject that.

– David Becroft, Mulwala

The io9 sci-fi site had an entry about a short story, Amaryllis, that I found a bit irritating as it is about the theme of rebelling against the system – in this case, one that has instigated population growth control. I previously mentioned a series of novels with a similar theme (16/7/2009 entry). I commented:

The main character struck me as selfish – putting her own wants ahead of others and the society she lives in, never mind how it might affect or inconvenience them. So I could only feel irritation, not sympathy – she would deserve whatever punishment they might mete out.

Seven billion and counting

With dismaying inevitability, the world’s population is to officially to top 7 billion in 2011 (The Age/NYT), and continue climbing to 9 billion by mid-century. (The SBS TV channel will have to update its slogan, “Six billion stories and counting…”) Yet they are still worried about an aging population! It’s a demographic hump that will just have to be dealt with – increasing the birthrate and a temporary supply of younger people is not a solution (they in turn will grow old).

The Australian Federal election is to be held on Saturday 21 August. Both candidates (Julia Gillard of Labor and Tony Abbott of the Liberals) have made some statements about their population policies (“No ‘top-gear’ rush to population growth: Gillard”, 18/7; “Population: focus turns on middle ground”, 19/7) but one has little confidence about their real commitment to sustainability.

“India’s population poised to top China’s”, 14/7. India is predicted to have 1.6 billion by 2050 – a social disaster as there is already poverty in parts of society and no social security. (National Population Stabilisation Fund)

I got a Facebook notice that Businessman Dick Smith ran an advertisement in Tuesday’s The Australian (which I missed as the message came the next day).

“Growth is good and a bigger Australia brings real social and cultural value” – The Australian editorial 21 July 2010

---

A Message from Dick Smith

---

The prime obligation of the Murdoch media is to maximise profits and returns to shareholders by supporting endless economic growth.

The Murdoch media has no obligation to show leadership in values such as our quality of life, sustainablility or a safe future for our children and grandchildren.

Please note this when you read all articles and, particularly, editorials in the Murdoch media.

www.dicksmithpopulation.com.au

For another view on the growth debate, see my documentary, “Dick Smith’s Population Puzzle” screening on the ABC at 8:30 p.m., Thursday 12 August. DVD available 13 August.

Dick Smith’s $1 Million Wilberforce Award will go to a young person who shows responsible leadership by communicating the impossibility of endless economic growth in a finite world. Details on the DVD.

Wilberforce Award Endless growth is not sustainable.

The editorial the next day countered, “No apologies, Mr. Smith, growth is good”. I strongly beg to disagree!

“Big business wants ‘Big Australia’ ”, The Age/SMH, 1/8. Opinion piece by Dick Smith.

The supporters of a “Big Australia” are mainly big business, who find it easier to increase profits by supporting an ever-expanding population. As a businessman, I’ve benefited from such lazy thinking – good for wealthy people like me, but downhill from now for most Australians. It is growth that comes with tremendous long-term problems and it’s vital that we start planning for the long-term future of this country.

Of course it would be foolish to argue that as a nation we have not been enriched by immigration. We are nearly all migrants to this country. But many studies have shown that high levels of immigration have a downside for the people already living here.

The economic wealth of the nation cannot be continually divided among more people without most having less. We live in a finite world and sooner or later we will have to stop growing. I believe we are rapidly reaching our limits in this extremely dry continent, where barely 6 per cent of the land is suitable for food production and water is scarce.

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.

Thou shalt not breed

“Thou shalt not breed: Anglicans”, The Age, 9/5. The Anglican Church caused a minor flurry in May when it issued a statement saying that the baby bonus was environmentally irresponsible and should be scrapped (replaced by paid parental leave).

Wading into the population debate, the General Synod of the Anglican Church has warned that current rates of population growth are unsustainable and potentially out of step with church doctrine – including the eighth commandment, “Thou shall not steal”.

In a significant intervention, the Anglican Public Affairs Commission has warned concerned Christians that remaining silent “is little different from supporting further overpopulation and ecological degradation”.

“Out of care for the whole of creation, particularly the poorest of humanity and the life forms who cannot speak for themselves…it is not responsible to stand by and remain silent,” a discussion paper by the commission warns. “Unless we take account of the needs of future life on Earth, there is a case that we break the eighth commandment – ‘Thou shall not steal’.”

Approving letters, 16/5:

They’ve got it!

Congratulations to the Anglican Church for its courageous and principled stand on population growth. Accumulated and overwhelming evidence over the past 40 years has highlighted the folly of human self-interest and arrogance as the species continues to breed unabated while totally disregarding its effect on the world’s finite capacities.

Without halting population growth, the environmental and resource problems cannot be mitigated. A stand-out example is global warming, where the effect of the projected growth in local and global population will completely negate any reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Sustainable development is an oxymoron in the face of population growth and it should be challenged every time it is uttered.

– Robert Boffey, Macleod

Curb the growth

The Anglican Church should be congratulated and supported wholeheartedly (on its call for a population curb in Australia).

Probably, this is the first time that a Christian church has taken such a momentous leadership direction. Most Western nations have near zero or negative population growth; but population growth is taking place in developing countries, by up to 5 per cent a year.

The biggest threat to world peace and civil society in the future will come from unsustainable population growth. People in most developing countries do not have sufficient water to drink or land to grow food, let alone materials to build shelter. In many poor countries, any economic progress they make is swallowed up by increasing population. Global warming and climate change will certainly make life more difficult in such countries. It is only a matter of time before large numbers of refugees from overpopulated countries seek to move to less populated countries. This will result in warfare, death and destruction.

It is to be hoped that all churches and political parties take the Anglicans’ lead and seek to curb population growth as a policy initiative around the world.

– Bill Mathew, Parkville

Thou shalt not mislead

The headline about the Anglican Public Affairs Commission discussion paper on population issues was misleading. Neither explicitly or implicitly does the paper argue that people should not have children. Rather, it suggests that the government incentive to have more children – the baby bonus – be removed and replaced by increased paid parental leave so as to strengthen the time parents are able to have with their babies.

The article also said that the paper came from the Anglican General Synod. In fact, it was prepared by the national Public Affairs Commission and will be considered by the General Synod at its meeting in September.

– Professor John Langmore, chairman, Anglican Public Affairs Commission

“Hoping for some gains amid the growing pains”, 12/5. This article aroused my ire as the couple profiled are displaying environmental irresponsibility by having so many children (four with another on the way).

Although Mrs Smith admitted money was sometimes tight for extra-curricular activities for the children, she said there were benefits to having a large household. “I love having a big family. There’s never a dull moment and always plenty of laughs, and a few tears,” she said. “Our aim was to start with two and then we quickly went to four and then we thought if we’re going to do it they can grow up together. When they are older they will be best mates.” Last year the budget brought some pain for the family – they were hoping this year would not be the same.

Well, if your budget is tight, stop breeding! Of course they expect Government handouts. A similar article featured a couple with five children and another on the way. What the hell is wrong with these people? We live in a society where most children can be expected to survive to adulthood, and contraception is readily available, so there is little excuse anymore to have large families. Such couples should also be classified as “environmental vandals”. They should be penalized from child #3 onwards, either actively with extra taxes, or passively by withdrawal of Government funding for extra children.

Australia is not the only nation promoting family growth; I came across this news item at the Kremlin.ru site: “Ceremony awarding the Order of Parental Glory to parents of large families”. Even if Russia’s population is declining, there is (as of 2002 census) just over 141 million – over 6 times that of Australia’s – hardly any reason to be concerned yet!

Environmental vandals

“Australia’s global footprint one of the worst”, The Age, 6/5. The discovery and settlement of Australia by European explorers was arguably the most disastrous event in the continent’s history – for both its environment and indigenous population – and the destruction is still ongoing. The Federal and State Governments’ supposed concern about the environment is just empty rhetoric. Greens Senator Bob Brown said that Australia and humanity are sealing their own fates. I will probably vote for the Greens in the Federal election later this year, though I don’t agree with all their policies; they seem to be the only party with some integrity left.

“Melbourne’s liveability under threat as population grows, experts warn”, Herald-Sun, 14/6. I now have the misfortune to live in the fastest-growing state in Australia, and it is hell, as far as I am concerned. Premier Brumby did acknowledge that Victoria’s population has been growing too fast, but then repeated the furphy that growth was necessary to deal with an ageing population:

Mr. Brumby said it was important Victoria and Australia maintained population growth to deal with an ageing population. “When all of the baby boomers go through, for every seven baby boomers there will just be two people who are productive in the community,” he said.

Following this line of reasoning, those younger people will also grow old in the future, and require yet more people to sustain them. Where does this idiocy end?

The state in which I grew up is being ruined, both socially and environmentally, and the blame starts with Premier Jeff Kennett’s policies in the 1990s, followed by the Labor Government.

Collected letters

A collection of letters from The Age over the last 2 months.

18/5:

Stable population key to our future

In an act of seemingly good planning and policy, hundreds of homes will be added to three of Melbourne’s largest public housing estates at a time when the waiting list for public housing is nearing 40,000 (“Public housing gets boost”, The Age, 17/5).

The crisis at all levels of housing means that our federal government, with the support of state governments, can implement its high-density social housing agenda under the guise of a much-needed, but manufactured, social necessity.

Our population growth is not inevitable and neither is the public’s displacement from home ownership. In a stable population, most houses would already be existing, or inherited.

Children should not be raised in hot-houses, and we should expect escalating violence and crime.

Crises such as peak oil, the global population blow-out and climate change demand more functional, sustainable, self-supporting towns, rather than heat-trapping high-rises and environmentally destructive urban sprawl.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

30/5:

Missing the point

“Foreign Property Fear Exaggerated” (23/5) misses the point. There are two issues regarding foreigners purchasing property. The first is whether foreigners were making illegal purchases in breach of the FIRB rules. I doubt whether this is a significant factor but it’s hard to know when the FIRB reviewed only 58 sales. The second is Rudd relaxing the FIRB rules making it much easier for temporary residents to legally purchase property. These purchases were not identified in the FIRB review because they’re legal transactions. Therefore, to conclude fears over foreigners purchasing our homes are exaggerated on the basis the FIRB did not identify illegal purchases is ignorant.

The fact is Rudd has reduced the visa eligibility period from three years to one year, broadened the definition of “existing dwelling”, and abolished the $300,000 cap for student visa holders. These changes, none of which have been reversed, have had a significant impact. The Age’s own survey concluded 30-40 per cent of sales between Camberwell and Doncaster may have been to foreigners. You don’t need an economics degree to conclude these changes have priced local families out of the market – and they have every right to be angry.

– Stephen Roberts, Box Hill North

11/6:

Earth has limits

David Milner (Letters, 10/6) queries the notion that perpetual economic growth is a bad thing. There are two main reasons why it is. The first is that it is impossible. The earth has limits. The failure to recognise this is one reason why there is such widespread environmental damage and why billions of people live in poverty. Things will get much worse if we stay on this path. The second is that there is a better way that avoids these consequences – the steady state economy.

– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge

13/6:

Population control a must

“People could be a threat to ecology” (6/6). Could Be? We are! Humans are the greatest threat to the balanced ecology of this planet. The excessive growth of the human species at the expense of all other living creatures, both flora and fauna, cannot go unchecked without the ecological system breaking down.

The Rudd government needs to take the lead to curb the growth of humans on this planet.

Carbon tax, carbon trading and now mining tax are side issues compared with the unchecked growth of the human species.

– Bob Greaves, Mount Eliza

17/6:

In response to Premier Brumby’s dubious plan to alleviate Melbourne’s growth problems by forcing people into rural areas, which are ill-equipped to deal with such growth, and would spoil their amenity:

One-track plan will ruin our lifestyles

It appears that John Brumby, having made Melbourne a not-so-liveable city, is planning to divert some surplus population to some regional cities.

Residents of Castlemaine and Bendigo have a good lifestyle, community spirit and access to parks, gardens and countryside. House prices, though increasing, are not insane and you can generally park your car near where you want to go without paying mega-bucks for the privilege.

We also have a rail link to Melbourne, which works tolerably well, except on very hot days, when the lines buckle. There is a limit as to how much more the line could take since former transport minister Peter Batchelor removed, at great expense, large sections of the parallel line. The single line doesn’t handle the delays well, as trains have to wait for those travelling in the other direction.

An increase in population will bring increased difficulties with these single-line sections of the track and probable meltdowns.

Mr. Brumby might find it to his advantage to try to limit population growth rather than exporting the surplus to us, for most of us are not going to be happy about it. We like our lifestyle the way it is.

– Cedric Buck, Castlemaine

What’s the point in shifting all those public sector jobs to rural areas – there’s no water here; you’ve already piped it to Melbourne. Leave the jobs in Melbourne and reap the so-called benefits of encouraging population growth for the past few decades.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

18/6:

Sold lie on growth

It is nonsense to state that Melbourne or regional Victoria’s record high population growth is evidence of prosperity. Study after study has concluded there is no link between population growth and an increase in per capita wealth. Population growth damns us to unaffordable housing, increased pollution, loss of native habitat, strained infrastructure, and a growing wealth divide. How is any of this evidence of prosperity?

John Brumby may seek to spread the pain, but the real political backlash will come when Australians realise they are being sold a lie.

– Vladimir Stoikovich, Brunswick East

19/6:

Victorians aren’t hankering for more

To implement a cohesive growth and development strategy for Victoria, we need to recast our thinking away from the dichotomous Melbourne/regional, city/country mindset. We need to think of ourselves simply as Victoria. Because that is the eventual outcome of a push for growth in regional Victoria – a blurring of lines between city and country lifestyle.

But do Victorians wish to make this change in thinking, let alone change their way of life? I think not. There is no impetus for change. Only the government and businesses are crying out for growth to feed their greedy budgets. Everyone else loves the way they live, and all are reeling from a decade of far-too-rapid change.

Victoria is a very liveable state, and liveability is all about size. Melburnians love their city because it is big, without being huge. It has world-class amenities without the Tokyo commuting times. Regional Victorians equally enjoy their open spaces and smaller towns, but appreciate their easy access to big cities. Country people have no burning desire to become citified.

Mr. Brumby seems deaf and blind to his constituents. Over to you, Mr. Baillieu.

– Cecilia Litchfield, Balwyn

Sustainable sign

Why is an apparent downturn in the building industry so often reported as a negative thing (“Victoria props up ailing building”, The Age, 17/6)? Surely it’s an indicator that we are slowly moving towards a sustainable society. We can’t keep on pushing the urban boundaries into former green areas, or cramming ever more people into densely populated suburbs, or forcing people into rural areas thus destroying country character.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

John Brumby has “detected a hunger for growth” in regional cities. From whom did he “detect” this hunger – politicians and developers perhaps? Australians wanting a sustainable future detected something else – the start of a large political backlash.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

Fat city

A short news article from the 10/6 The Age on a statement by MP Kelvin Thomson:

Melbourne growing obese: Labor MP

Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson has described Melbourne as “obese” in a scathing attack on the Victorian government’s decision to expand the urban boundary by thousands of hectares. “Melbourne is becoming an obese, hardened-artery parody of its former self. Extending the urban growth boundary is like a man rapidly gaining weight who thinks he can solve the problem by loosening his belt,” he said in a statement. He said the expansion would destroy nearly 7000 hectares of volcanic plains grassland, would add thousands of cars heading to the CBD every day, would create a massive infrastructure bill and contradicted the state government’s Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint. A planning amendment is before State Parliamentto expand Melbourne’s urban boundary by 43,600 hectares and allow for an estimated 134,000 new homes. It is expected to pass with the support of the opposition.

– Jason Dowling

A more detailed press release is reproduced at the PublicPopForum.

Melbourne is getting more unpleasant to live in as each year passes, the population increases and the city grows further like a cancer. Yet all the media can do is exult over rising real estate prices (good for investors and developers) and how the “building boom” supposedly benefits the economy. The Herald-Sun article below is an example (not available online):

More people, more homes: Victoria leads nation in building boom and urban sprawl

Outer suburbs in Victoria are booming with a mass of new homes built. Victoria is the growth capital of the country and in the past year has had four of the top five fastest-growing regions by population.

The Population and Residential Building Hotspots report by the Housing Industry Association showed Whittlesea north top the list with an incredible $484 million worth of new building approvals in 2008-09. There was 18 per cent population growth in Whittlesea north in the same period. Wyndham south took second place with 13 per cent growth, and Cardinia Pakenham and Melton east were fourth and fifth.

The HIA says Victoria has the fastest growing population, and building works must keep accelerating in areas of demand.

But a leading urban planner said the push to the fringes meant the gap between the “haves and have nots” was rapidly increasing. HIA Victorian executive director Gil King said there was no sign of boom suburb growth slowing.

“Victoria has had the nation’s fastest population growth, meaning demand for housing is higher than other states,” Ms King said. “It is crucial that the Victorian Government continues to introduce measures that aim at stimulating housing supply, including the promised expansion of the urban growth boundary.”

Senior urban planning lecturer at the University of Melbourne Dr Alan March said he was concerned about the low density of developments in growth areas and questioned how growth would spread. “One of the great problems we suffer in this growth is going into areas that are poorer in the levels of services that they have, compared to existing areas,” Dr March said. “And there’s not a great range of housing choice.”

Dr March said first home buyer grants were pushing prices up and there must be more assistance given to people in boom suburbs.

“If you look at data over the past 20 years, we are seeing a greater distance between the haves and have nots,” he said.

Of course the HIA wants more houses built as it profits their members! Never mind the damage to the environment. The fragile native volcanic grasslands that provide breathing space are being subsumed under a mass of housing – but most people tend to see these regions as “worthless” and open land that should be built over.

I get angry and despairing at this continuing destruction, enough so to hope for a firestorm to destroy the housing estates.

Cramped city

Tokyo’s population has reached an astonishing 13 million (13.1 million as of 1/4), packed into a dense urban area of 2000 km² (Victoria, in contrast, has 3.4 million people in nearly 9000 km²). I suppose some would say that such density is an efficient use of space, but to me it sounds nightmarish. Granted, Japan has a cultural mindset that allows people to mostly live civily in such crowded conditions (one can imagine how those from a relatively uncivilized and violent Australian culture would cope – namely, not at all!), but it is hardly a desirable way to live.

Some officials in China are pushing to ease the one-child limit, because of alarmism over an aging population. (However, the one-child limit does not apply to ethnic minorities and rural families.) The surfeit of younger people will supposedly slow down economic growth. But the population is still growing, expected to reach 1.4 billion in 2026 before shrinking – how do they expect to find employment and resources for such huge numbers? Some are opposed to relaxing the limit.

Still, not all experts agree the one-child rule should be dropped. Li Xiaoping, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, welcomes the coming population decline, saying it will ease food and water shortages and limit pollution. Writing in the state-run China Daily newspaper, Li said the government should stand firm on the one-child limit while finding ways to boost the earning power of a smaller work force.

“Taiwanese solution to soaring house prices: don’t have kids”, The Age, 27/4. Like Australia’s housing market, Taiwan’s is also out of control, no thanks to investors, and one inadvertent result has been a decline in fertility. Its population at over 23 million is only a little more than Australia’s, but crammed into a small island, so such a decline is a good thing – but not according to the writer, who raises the usual ageing population alarmism.

But not having children creates even bigger costs ahead. Right now, Taiwan has 6.8 people of working age for every retiree. But preschools are already closing for lack of children, and the population is set to shrink dramatically. By 2032, demographers project, Taiwan will have just 2.5 potential workers for every retiree – and by 2056, just 1.4. If nothing changes, Taiwan – like China, Japan and Korea – will slowly become economically unviable.

“The shock of the old: Welcome to the elderly age”, 8/4. This article states that an ageing population is not necessarily a bad thing, and even a positive thing in many respects – one being that the pathological social obsession with youth might abate. Society will need to make some adjustments, such as being prepared to employ older workers, but it won’t be the disaster many doomsayers predict. Another positive aspect not mentioned: with fewer young males around, violence should also lessen.

“Too many people packed into dirty, crowded cities”, Daily Telegraph, 11/2. An opinion piece by businessman Dick Smith, who has become an opponent of population growth (one of the good guys, in other words!). Australia should not seek to emulate the megacities of the world, which are horridly overcrowded.