"And if something is unsustainable then, by definition, it must come to an end,--. It is up to us as a nation, to ensure that the transition from the current situation, to one that can continue, is as smooth, painless and fair as possible--."
Good words that express a philosophy essential for Australian society throughout the continent. But meaningless in the face of politicians' deliberate side-stepping of unpalatable fundamental issues:
First, Australia's climate has never been benign in relation to its agriculture, as practiced on its present scale. The last half century is acknowledged as having been a good patch. Perhaps the weather experienced over the last decade might be closer to long-term average. But certainty exists that those elements, already in place, of human-induced drivers of climate change will increasingly exacerbate existing problems until full effect is experienced, in another half century.
Second, agriculture-exported soil nutrients, embodied within produce, to cities and overseas, is not sustainable. These nutrients have to be returned/replaced, needing energy to do so. And phosphorus replacement is a concern.Insufficiency of available phosphorus and cheap energy would have Australian agriculture ceasing as part of world economy.
Third, Australian city and country might haggle among themselves, but are fully interdependent. Pressures upon Australian landscapes arise fundamentally from the weight of city populations and their needs/wants, mostly via direct pressure upon those working the land.
Ever since Charles Darwin's visit, perceptive people recognised problems inherent in an excess of people flogging this continent's limited capacity to provide for them. Twenty million people in 2006 is demonstrably an excess. How many is reasonable? Difficult to say. CSIRO's "Future Dilemmas" provides some options for numbers and consumption. No rosy picture comes out of it for continuing escalation of consumer-economics for ever-growing numbers of people. So I hope (not in expectation) that Andrew Bartlett's fine words about sustainability encompass consideration of Australia's burgeoning numbers (every four years another 1 million, and not enough say the Property/Business Councils).

Hmmn, Dude on a comfortable Senator's salary talks up "hard choices" on farmers future. Dude cautions about farmers "privilege" before they have even got a single dollar. Dude who has never sown a single crop in his life claims to know more about appropriate crop mixes and cycles than the farmers themselves.

This article is clear evidence that city and country are already two distinct communities. No-one ever questions whether any other part of the community deserves their safety net but the moment farmers need help we get all sorts of parsimonious bottom feeders talking about the need for "hard decisions".

So, when can we expect some hard decisions to be made for the urban community? When can we see certain suburbs in our metropolitan centres being bulldozed on the basis that they fail every credible test of economic, social and ecological sustainability?

When do we start withdrawing medicare treatment for the skin cancers of builders labourers on the basis that "they knew the risks"? Or how about cancelling the single mums pension on the basis that "they're just dumb slappers who won't learn from past mistakes"?

You're right, it sounds really offensive, but no less offensive than this rebadging of victorian notions of "deserving and undeserving poor" masquerading behind a veneer of ecological sustainability.

Andrew,
Sorry mate but you don't seem to understand, for every unviable farm we get rid of a farmer cannot claim business overheads, flood relief, drought relief, and besides, this would be taken as an afront to private enterprise, free enterprise. Don't you worry about that mate, just get all those dole bludgers a job, and she'l be sweey, oh I forgot 95.1% of those dole bludgers are working,...well it's just not "extreme right" to take an unviable farmer off the land.

Anyway they are all unviable, because we can get Zimbabweans to farm a lot cheaper than Aussie farmers, let's get rid of the lot of them, but then we'd miss "oh! it's dry" and "oh! too much water" wouldn't we, we Aussies like to hear the whine of the farming sector.

Andrew, if the government wanted to alleviate the present problem and provide a permanent solution all it has to do is plan for the future – not the next election. Why not take a lead from the past. A while ago, politicians complained about the federal parliament building. They found it unsuitable. Many millions of dollars were found to build a brand new parliament. I think the expenditure on the flag pole alone was something like AUD$4 million. The problem was fixed. We didn’t have to press ‘hardship money’ into the politicians’ hands did we.

Prior to the building of the new federal parliament house, Premier Court of WA over-flew the area near Kununurra. He thought about what could be done with the area. It required money, commitment, the defeat of naysayers and more. We now have the Ord River Scheme which would’ve died aborning if you were allowed anywhere near it. We have a great example of what can happen when we have ‘can do’ people rather than ‘can not do’ people.

What about the AUD$1 billion cheque we’ve given the Indonesians. Do you see any Australian politician telling Indonesians that it would be silly and futile to rebuild on a known fault line? Why allow the Indonesians to enjoy sentimentality? When we send aid to Africa I don’t see you deliver a lecture to some Ghanaian that his tribal life in Tumu and his farming practices are both unsustainable. Not only do you sanction the delivery of aid to unsustainable practices but certain NGOs are calling for us to increase our aid so unsustainable practices are seen as OK by NGOs.

Be consistent Andrew and lay off the sauce.

Did you mention big picture Shonga?

We have always known where we are!

Sadly, Life is not a comfort zone, its a reality.

To the country folk, and with respect, join the real world.

Together is better than divide!