Melbourne has hosted the Australian Grand Prix car race since 1996. The race moved to Melbourne from Adelaide under the then Kennett Liberal government. At the time, there was much controversy about the financial benefits of the race at the time, and the environmental and social impacts of holding it on a street circuit around Melbourne's Albert Park lake.
Subsequent Bracks and Brumby Labor governments continued to provide unconditional support for the race. The Victorian government has consistently refused to disclose the amount of public money provided to race organisers and promoters. It is in the range of tens of millions of dollars.
Successive governments have also claimed that the benefits to Melbourne and Victoria outweigh the costs, but have provide no evidence of this.
This is public money, so the public has the right to know how it is spent, and on what basis. Hiding this expenditure is simply not acceptable.
It is therefore very disappointing that the recently elected Baillieu government has chosen to continue funding the Grand Prix, holding it on the Albert Park circuit, and to also withhold the information on public money spent on the race.
This is after Ted Baillieu's claim to provide "transparent and good government".
Successive governments have simply failed to assess public opinion on this issue. Majority community opinion remains untested, and our democratic system has failing to provide and opportunity for anyone to vote on this matter.
We need a plebiscite on this issue now.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
125 scientists condemn basis for "alpine grazing trial"
A letter to Robert Clark (MP), Ted Baillieu (Premier), Ryan Smith (Minister for Environment and Climate Change), Peter Walsh (Minister for Agriculture and Food Security)
Robert, Ryan, Peter and Ted,
Robert, Ryan, Peter and Ted,
I note that 125 scientists have now stated that your the "trials of alpine grazing to test bushfire mitigation" lack scientific integrity. This includes 11 professors and nine associate professors.
The also state, correctly, that government has potentially broken federal environment (EPBC) law.
As per my previous correspondence, this pre-emptive and ill-considered move is bad for everyone other than a few select families (about 12 I think).
It is also quite obvious to all that cattle don't eat eucalyptus trees or leaf litter, and any "trampling effect" is negligible.
Your government should act for the people, and base decisions on good practice and good process. Re-introducing cattle to National Parks under a sham pretext fails on all these counts.
I urge you to reconsider this action immediately.
Regards, Peter
See also: Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable, previous post
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Strategies for dealing with Queensland and Victorian floods
Here is a post I put on Facebook recently, and the comments it attracted. It is interesting to note divergent opinions on the responsibilities of state governments and developers.
It is however very clear that a lot of homes have been built on areas known to be subject to regular flooding, with little or no effective measures to protect the.
What about marking the highest water levels of recent floods then elevating houses on posts above this where possible (e.g. up to say 4-5m max height above ground level) and consider carefully what to do about the rest. Perhaps they should be rezoned as high flood risk and residents assisted to relocate to higher ground?
15 Jan 2011
Glenn It seems that developers have the final say on what land is to be developed. They are in the business of making money. If they can get away with building houses on flood prone land then they will. They call it capitalism. I call it greed.
Kieran When it comes to developers, everyone calls it GREED.
Peter Campbell Yes, its greed. But what is the cost? At around $10b+ for the Queensland floods, this money would be better spent preventing future flood impacts and another $10b+ costs for the next flood(s). Governments should regulate this.
Heather What has happened in Aust, Brazil, Sri lanka,Bangladesh etc is tragic -but now wait for class actions in negligence against developers and those issuing planning and building permits,particularly by those with insurance probs.The one positive to come out of this situation is that finally authorities are realising that the statistics haven't lied-what all of us have known for 20 years-climate change is happening and proactive preparations need to be undertaken to ensure that societies are protected as best they can be.Smart developers will realise this and develop accordingly.
Simon Developers fault? Developers greed? What? It is a failure of regulation and politicians...the developers can only do what they are allowed to so to blame them is simply ignoring (or absolving) the real issue that it is a failure of government. And after our recent decade long experience in Victoria it also isnt a simple political 'left' or 'right' wing issue either...it comes down to the morals and values of those who set policy.
Harriett Many Brisbane residents were offered buy-backs of their property by the council and they refused.
Danny Developers aren't passive victims of government regulations. Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments and get zoning regulations overridden or modified to suit them. Half the problem with the "morals and values of those who set policy" comes from corruption, in which property developers have a starring role.
Simon " Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments " No, they may 'attempt' to but if they succeed it is due to those that allow it to happen!! The kind of thinking that says it is all the ‘big bad property developer’ is the real problem as we are not making the policy and regulation makers responsible for their actions!! All vested interest groups try and influence and sway policy, the greens certainly do, as do the pro lifers etc. etc. So the issue is with the policy makers and regulators and it is they who need to be held accountable…to do otherwise (and/or blame the vested interest group trying to sway them) is to absolve them of the very responsibility they should be held to account for.
Danny Problems with the political process can't be separated from the rest of society. It's not a coincidence that the most corrupt and least transparent countries in the world also have massive levels of wealth and income inequality. We need to regulate corruption at _both_ ends, by coming down on the people who pay bribes as well as those who take them.
Tom Wrong Simon. 4 years at Waverley Council says you are wrong, wrong, wrong and talking through your hat as well. The donors control the govt who monster the local councils, and the NSW EP&A Act - you could drive a B double through it - and take over planning controls when it doesn't work. Latest example is state govt sell out of Wagga Wagga planning to smear campaign of the developers.
Michael "Transparent Ted" is a property developer by trade isn't he. Maybe he'll make everyone relocate to Dinner Plain, with all the cattle?
Peter Campbell I thought the "other John Howard" in Sea Change was an accurate simile of real life. He wdas busy flogging off Porpoise Spit to Japanese Developers (pre Japan's recession), and ramming through developments regardless of local and environmental impact. In our society, money buys votes, and developers pressure councils and even get their candidates onto them. I agree with Danny, about taking action against bribe takers and givers. Lets see if the anti-corruption commission deals with this.
Simon I agree with Danny too...as the politicians set the process then so to they need to set the standard, leaders set the standards not society. Every time a person says no to being lobbied, coerced or worse they set a higher standard and challenge the (sad) theories of the like who say it is all the nasty developers/donors and nobody else has any power...bollocks, if the NSW govt. grew some stones, if the local govt. wouldn’t be bullied then the issues of Tom's concern wouldn’t occur. That they do is an indictment on those who allowed it. Leadership starts from the top down. If we follow the logic of the power is all with the donor/developer etc. then the Greens are now at the behest of their political donor?? I would like to think not...
Simon Agree Peter, we do need adequate oversight and appropriate bodies to control these sorts of dubious and even fraudulent activities…but it will still come down to those who set the terms of reference and those who actually act/are appointed to those bodies to be moral centered. Sorry to bang on about it ;)
Heather Like Simon I have extremely strong views about the need for an anti-corruption commission which can deal with local govt and govt departments. Yes, I have had an unpleasant experience and all that I can say is thank goodness for the independence of VCAT!
External links
It is however very clear that a lot of homes have been built on areas known to be subject to regular flooding, with little or no effective measures to protect the.
What about marking the highest water levels of recent floods then elevating houses on posts above this where possible (e.g. up to say 4-5m max height above ground level) and consider carefully what to do about the rest. Perhaps they should be rezoned as high flood risk and residents assisted to relocate to higher ground?
15 Jan 2011
Glenn It seems that developers have the final say on what land is to be developed. They are in the business of making money. If they can get away with building houses on flood prone land then they will. They call it capitalism. I call it greed.
Kieran When it comes to developers, everyone calls it GREED.
Peter Campbell Yes, its greed. But what is the cost? At around $10b+ for the Queensland floods, this money would be better spent preventing future flood impacts and another $10b+ costs for the next flood(s). Governments should regulate this.
Heather What has happened in Aust, Brazil, Sri lanka,Bangladesh etc is tragic -but now wait for class actions in negligence against developers and those issuing planning and building permits,particularly by those with insurance probs.The one positive to come out of this situation is that finally authorities are realising that the statistics haven't lied-what all of us have known for 20 years-climate change is happening and proactive preparations need to be undertaken to ensure that societies are protected as best they can be.Smart developers will realise this and develop accordingly.
Simon Developers fault? Developers greed? What? It is a failure of regulation and politicians...the developers can only do what they are allowed to so to blame them is simply ignoring (or absolving) the real issue that it is a failure of government. And after our recent decade long experience in Victoria it also isnt a simple political 'left' or 'right' wing issue either...it comes down to the morals and values of those who set policy.
Harriett Many Brisbane residents were offered buy-backs of their property by the council and they refused.
Danny Developers aren't passive victims of government regulations. Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments and get zoning regulations overridden or modified to suit them. Half the problem with the "morals and values of those who set policy" comes from corruption, in which property developers have a starring role.
Simon " Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments " No, they may 'attempt' to but if they succeed it is due to those that allow it to happen!! The kind of thinking that says it is all the ‘big bad property developer’ is the real problem as we are not making the policy and regulation makers responsible for their actions!! All vested interest groups try and influence and sway policy, the greens certainly do, as do the pro lifers etc. etc. So the issue is with the policy makers and regulators and it is they who need to be held accountable…to do otherwise (and/or blame the vested interest group trying to sway them) is to absolve them of the very responsibility they should be held to account for.
Danny Problems with the political process can't be separated from the rest of society. It's not a coincidence that the most corrupt and least transparent countries in the world also have massive levels of wealth and income inequality. We need to regulate corruption at _both_ ends, by coming down on the people who pay bribes as well as those who take them.
Tom Wrong Simon. 4 years at Waverley Council says you are wrong, wrong, wrong and talking through your hat as well. The donors control the govt who monster the local councils, and the NSW EP&A Act - you could drive a B double through it - and take over planning controls when it doesn't work. Latest example is state govt sell out of Wagga Wagga planning to smear campaign of the developers.
Michael "Transparent Ted" is a property developer by trade isn't he. Maybe he'll make everyone relocate to Dinner Plain, with all the cattle?
Peter Campbell I thought the "other John Howard" in Sea Change was an accurate simile of real life. He wdas busy flogging off Porpoise Spit to Japanese Developers (pre Japan's recession), and ramming through developments regardless of local and environmental impact. In our society, money buys votes, and developers pressure councils and even get their candidates onto them. I agree with Danny, about taking action against bribe takers and givers. Lets see if the anti-corruption commission deals with this.
Simon I agree with Danny too...as the politicians set the process then so to they need to set the standard, leaders set the standards not society. Every time a person says no to being lobbied, coerced or worse they set a higher standard and challenge the (sad) theories of the like who say it is all the nasty developers/donors and nobody else has any power...bollocks, if the NSW govt. grew some stones, if the local govt. wouldn’t be bullied then the issues of Tom's concern wouldn’t occur. That they do is an indictment on those who allowed it. Leadership starts from the top down. If we follow the logic of the power is all with the donor/developer etc. then the Greens are now at the behest of their political donor?? I would like to think not...
Heather Like Simon I have extremely strong views about the need for an anti-corruption commission which can deal with local govt and govt departments. Yes, I have had an unpleasant experience and all that I can say is thank goodness for the independence of VCAT!
External links
- 2010 Australian floods - Greenlivingpedia, a wiki on green living, building and energy
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable
A letter to Robert Clark MP, copied to Premier Ted Bailleu.
===========
Dear Robert
Congratulations on winning government.
I am however not pleased to be writing to you as my local member about the Baillieu government's ill-considered actions in allowing cattle to return to graze in Victoria's Alpine National Park.
Cattle have no place in sensitive alpine environments. They cause far too much damage trampling sensitive streams and bogs and their excrement pollutes the environment and water supplies. I have seen this destruction at first hand in the Victorian Alps.
I assisted a PhD student in 1984 whose thesis researched and measured the impacts of alpine grazing. Unsurprisingly, his published results stated that cattle grazing had major impacts on sensitive alpine ecosystems.
This action by the Baillieu government is not supported by a majority of Victorians. It benefits very few people. Our Alpine National Park should be protected from cattle grazing, as the adjacent Kosciusko National Park in NSW has been for decades.
This action will compromise Victoria's alpine environments and jeopardise their World Heritage listing.
I strongly urge you to reverse this decision and provide our Alpine National Park the protection from cattle grazing that science has confirmed in requires. Can you please table my concerns in both your party room and the Victorian parliament about this on my behalf?
Regards, Peter Campbell
============
External links
I am however not pleased to be writing to you as my local member about the Baillieu government's ill-considered actions in allowing cattle to return to graze in Victoria's Alpine National Park.
Cattle have no place in sensitive alpine environments. They cause far too much damage trampling sensitive streams and bogs and their excrement pollutes the environment and water supplies. I have seen this destruction at first hand in the Victorian Alps.
I assisted a PhD student in 1984 whose thesis researched and measured the impacts of alpine grazing. Unsurprisingly, his published results stated that cattle grazing had major impacts on sensitive alpine ecosystems.
This action by the Baillieu government is not supported by a majority of Victorians. It benefits very few people. Our Alpine National Park should be protected from cattle grazing, as the adjacent Kosciusko National Park in NSW has been for decades.
This action will compromise Victoria's alpine environments and jeopardise their World Heritage listing.
I strongly urge you to reverse this decision and provide our Alpine National Park the protection from cattle grazing that science has confirmed in requires. Can you please table my concerns in both your party room and the Victorian parliament about this on my behalf?
Regards, Peter Campbell
============
External links
- Alpine grazing resumes - Weekly Times Now
- Grazing returns to high country - The Age
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)