Petition to Greg Donnelly, Cate Faehrmann, Daniel Mookhey, Trevor Khan, Peter Phelps, Fred Nile, Shayne Mallard, Mr Fix It
Nick Greiner must front the WestConnex Inquiry
In 2011, Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell appointed another former Liberal Premier, Nick Greiner as the head of Infrastructure NSW, tasked with prioritising major projects. Soon after, Greiner announced the WestConnex toll road as the state's top priority transport project. Normally, planning for Sydney's transport needs is done by Transport for NSW. But Greiner pushed aside the transport experts who recommended rail, not toll roads. To this date, not a single independent transport expert has supported WestConnex and its cost has blown out from $10B to $17B. It appears that Greiner subverted the process to benefit toll road operator Transurban, where he is an advisor. Nick Greiner must be called before the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into WestConnex to answer questions about his involvement in pushing this massive corporate scam on the people of NSW.
Petition to Graham Quirk - Lord Mayor, Hon Cameron Dick
STOP! Massive Over-Development in Nathan
STOP! this Massive Over-Development of our suburb, Nathan. Developers are proposing 750 units! We currently have only 400 dwellings in Nathan, this increase is incomprehensible. Our population is approximately 1400 and this development would easily double that with no infrastructure change to incorporate that amount of people. The site they are planning to develop is 6.6 hectares. The current dwellings in Nathan currently sit on 22.9 hectares. Putting that in to perspective is double the housing on a third less of land. Some simple facts: - Density. Currently in our suburb we have heights of up to two storey walk up duplexes and small complexes. Most common dwelling is free standing houses. We have 283 houses, 14 duplexes and 18 complexes with an average of 5 units per complex. No consideration was given to our BCC Neighbourhood Plan or the Mayors Brisbane's Future Blueprint. - Traffic management. The traffic engineering report submitted by the applicant appears to underestimate the likely volume of trips generated by this proposed land use. In designing the internal access roads, the applicant has failed to prioritise pedestrian connectivity to the high-frequency BUZ stop on Toohey Rd (a significant missed opportunity). Many residents of this potential retirement living complex are unlikely to be able to walk the 500+ metres to this bus stop, and are likely to be more reliant on private vehicle transport (either their own vehicles or private taxi services) than the developer suggests. As such, the density of this site should be scaled back, and the applicant should be required to demonstrate additional measures to improve connectivity and access to nearby public transport services. - Infrastructure. Over 60% of residents in Brisbane drive their vehicle to work. Another 6% travel as a passenger. We don't have the infrastructure to support this influx, neither do we have the facilities to support this development. In 2016, ABS provided statistics which showed that over 30% of households in Brisbane owned at least 1 car. Over 35% owned 2 cars and nearly 20% owned 3 cars or more. Close to 90% of households own 1 or more cars. If the development were to be approved at a minimum of 500 units, or up to 750 as proposed, where will these cars will be parked. Most developments of this size will cater for 1 car park. This leaves hundreds of cars either on the street or parked illegally. THIS IS NOT SAFE, nor is it practicable. - Communal Recreation Park. The proposed site cover is excessive and not in keeping with the site cover proportions for other residences in the neighbourhood. The developer should be required to provide significantly more open green space and more deep-planted trees on site, and this open green space should be designed so that it is useable and accessible to members of the broader community rather than being exclusively for the use of residents. While this part of Nathan has ample bushland, there is very little open green space for recreation. Local children have nowhere to kick a ball or throw a Frisbee, and so council should be using this redevelopment of industrial land as an opportunity to deliver a new public park for the broader community. It would be appropriate to require one smaller vegetated garden-style park in the south-east corner of the site (integrating with the existing on-site vegetation and neighbouring bushland) as well as a larger public park along the northern side of the site that is designed so as to be accessible and welcoming to residents of the wider neighbourhood. Brisbane City Council have failed residents with a lack of proper public consultation through meaningful community engagement and feedback. Thus, leaving residents very frustrated with little choice but to initiate our own action. Developers all over Brisbane are being allowed to push for greater housing density ignoring important Neighbourhood Plans handed down by BCC to preserve the suburbs character, infrastructure and natural assets. Council are also failing to rigorously assess development applications according to their own Future Blueprints. Please help us to STOP! Massive Over-Development in Nathan.
Petition to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Bill Shorten, All Australian members of the Senate, Australian State Premiers and Members of Parliament
Proposal for Permanent Infrastructure implementation for drought relief water supplies
To all of the Honorable Members of the Australian Senate Regarding our proposed Drought Relief Scheme. My name is Kevin Bartolo from Narrawallee, near Milton Ulladulla on the South Coast of NSW. We are and have been a rural farming area since the towns were founded. Along with our neighboring south coast farming districts and those of the rest of Australia, we have signed the attached petition, which was taken online (https://www.change.org/p/to-theaustralian state-federal-governments-senate-proposal-for-infrastructure-implementation-forpermanent- drought-relief-water-supplies). We are wanting action taken to protect our farmers long term. It has gone beyond the time for drought relief and that of band-aid solutions of low interest loans and short term cash relief, but time for future preventative measures to be put into action. Farming is the backbone of any nation, without it, everyone is affected. It should never get to the state at which it is now. Farmers should not be put through the stress they are under, financially and mentally. Billions in financial relief has been given to those affected by drought, since 1971 and changing scope in 1989, 1992, 1997, (http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farmfood/ drought/drought-policy/history) The Drought Policy and Programs were to: encourage primary producers and other sections of rural Australia to adopt self-reliant approaches to managing for climate variability and facilitate the maintenance and protection of Australia’s agricultural and environmental resources base during periods of climatic stress facilitate the early recovery of agricultural and rural industries, consistent with long-term sustainable levels. Unfortunately these measures have not worked, as all have seen time and time again and really were just a push back onto those suffering from drought to find a solution. The problem isn't theirs to burden, it is Australia's burden. Going forward we need to see new infrastructure built to assist farmers during drought times. We propose that all state governments and our federal government, work together to bring this into place. The following is suggested, but in no means is being stated as the solution. The solution will need multiple types of infrastructure working together for one solution. Proposed: only to be used in times of drought only. 1 . Pipelines to be run from our major dams, and or new dams, that will allow direct supply to farms, or, access to filling stations which would be used by farmers using a community owned water truck which they have access to use and would be driven by themselves. 2 . We have a desalination plant that has plenty of capacity to provide extra water to supply these drought relief water supplies when needed. 3 . New infrastructure built to reuse our sewage and runoff water to feed the new dams for drought use. Water for cattle drinking and watering feed crop and human food crops. Infrastructure to move flood waters in waterways and areas of regular flooding into the drought water storage systems. 4 . In return, farmers will allocate acres of their land which they will indefinitely loan for solar, hydro and wind power production technology to be installed, by the Drought Relief Scheme, to feed power to any of the infrastructure, to have it running at cost neutral. As well as additional power to feed back into the grid as green energy which will see the drought relief scheme being paid for by any such power, which will go to pay for the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance and expansion costs. 5. This is a extremely large infrastructure project that will need many workers of different skill trades. We also propose that this is a perfect time for the government of Australia to make use of this opportunity, to wind back the use of Greenhouse producing electricity power stations and use the labor force that comes out of this closure, to be used and retrained if required, in the construction and maintenance of that outlined in (see.4). The cost to farmers will be nil for construction of this infrastructure and for usage of the water(only during drought with usage monitored). All costs to be covered by the production of electricity and its resale (see.4). The state and federal governments need to pay for the infrastructure up front (and payed back, see .4). The up front cost for the infrastructure could be payed by all Australians by a small increase in tax, say a once off, 1% drought relief tax, as a loan only, which will be payed back via tax break, claimed on a future tax return as a tax deduction or as shares of a public owned company with options to buy more shares. Australians will save more than the 1% increase with cheaper cost to the consumer of farming produce during drought times, as there won't be major price fluctuations due to affects of drought as farmers yields will be higher than that of times before the Drought Relief Scheme that has been proposed. It is a win win solution for farmers, and all Australians. As mentioned, in no way are we proposing this as the total solution. But the suggested measures, if looked at, will prevent future costs on farmers and the Australian community from drought and saving lives. Australia will always be in drought and need Governments to work together to instigate solutions, as we have suggested above, now, not later. We can show the world what can be done when you look at a problem from outside the box. Please do right for Australia. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully, Kevin Bartolo
Petition to Josh Frydenberg, Tanya Plibersek, Scott Morrison, Senator Penny Wong, Bill Shorten, Josh Frydenberg, Mitch Fifield, Tanya Plibersek, Bob Katter, Adam Bandt, Rebekha Sharkie, Senator Richard Di Natale
Dear politicians, we should elect our Prime Minister, not you!
We call on the members of parliament to introduce new laws regarding how a sitting Prime Minister can be removed. Because we should elect our Prime Minister, not the faceless power-brokers and disgruntled backbenchers. To the members of the Australian Parliament, Over the last 8 years Australia has had 5 changes to the Prime Ministership. To put this into some context, the previous 5 prime ministers were spread out over more than 3 decades. Given these facts I'm sure you'd agree that the recent track record is ridiculous. The events that we have witnessed in recent years, and again in August, is an absolute disgrace. It is making Australia the laughing stock of the world. Australians are fed up with seeing a running procession of Prime Ministers, especially when we didn't even vote for them. Frustratingly, the political class has repeatedly lectured us about how the Westminster system 'works' and how this system gives them the right to change our Prime Minister whenever the they want. Well, guess what? it clearly is not working - certainly not in the minds of the average Australian. The system is broken. At an election most Australians vote for a party, its policies and ultimately the leader who is plastered on every poster, TV and radio station. Therefore, we are effectively voting for the person who we wish to represent us as Prime Minister. We call on the members of parliament to introduce new laws regarding how a sitting Prime Minister can be removed. The aim of which is to make it harder for faceless power-brokers and disgruntled backbenchers to dispose of a sitting Prime Minister, against the peoples will. Ultimately this is about the stability and integrity of our democracy. We don't just expect a higher standard of you, we demand it. Yours sincerely, The Australian people, your electors.