As a long term admirer of the writings of Bruce Haigh on international issues, I'm now pleased to read his stringent critique of Howard's water policy, or lack of. But wish he had made suggestions for policy changes. Since Haigh apparently now farms at Mudgee, I wonder why he has not been involved in the Mudgee Environment Group's campaign to save stretches of the Goulburn River from mining impacts (info@stonecottages.com.au) An 8 km stretch of this beautiful river has already been "re-located" to facilitate mining and right now plans may be approved which will crack, drain and pollute this river even more.The NSW government can have the mine plans moved back to a safe distance from the river but, judging by past practice, it is happy to wreck NSW's rivers in order to get the royalties. Extensive and escalating mine damage to rivers, creeks and aquifers should be a major issue in any consideration of water policy. And this is a State not a Federal issue.

It is good to see Bruce Haigh's clear and thorough analysis of Howard's cunning, ruthless, and effective methods of putting it over the electorate with spin. It could well be that the issue of water will be the one that wakes up Australians to Howard's record of deceit, of our loss of civil liberties, unfair treatment of asylum seekerss, wrong directions on Iraq, on climate change, and on sycophantic support for George W.
To add to Howard's disgrace on water policy, there is his hypocrisy regarding nuclear power. Nuclear power uses about twice as much water as does coal, and many times more than renewable sources. Nuclear power also releases huge quantities of hot water into waterways or the coastal sea.
(Not that I think he really wants nuclear power anyway - it's probably just Howard's smokescreen for the plan to LEASE Australia's uranium, inviting back nuclear wastes from overseas)Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

I agree we have been aware of anthropogenic created climate change for over 25 years. We have been aware of the affects of pollution for centuries. The Howard government has no excuse for its neglect of Australia’s welfare during its term. Certainly the imperatives facing this country for the next decades and centuries will force us and future generations to look back on the Howard era with distain at the level of folly of this government. Sadly Australia has been burdened with a 19th century government in the 21st Century. Historically Australians have held chips on their shoulders always conscious that Australia lagged 20 to 30 years behind the world but ironically Australians sustained a government whose views and levels of awareness are 100 years backward.

What’s done is done; Labour through Rudd has shown that it will continue Howard’s slip backwards. It will be a good decade before real water shortages and resulting famine strangle this country.

While the Government fantasises about market forces acting as some sort of rain dance there is no planning of real water management, no stock piling of waste and urban storm water. No stock piling of grain and non-perishables to stave off approaching famines. There are no plans to arrest growing desertification. There is little attempt at protecting biodiversity so that natures own buffers could offer us protection.

Its been three years and the Health Minisiter couldnt effectively vaccine the nations children against bird flu. Instead he wastes tax payers time and money on pandering to his superstitious beliefs.

As Hurricane Katrina exposed the U.S government as weak and muddled so to the Victorian bushfires, water shortages, desertification, growing carbon emissions have exposed the Australian Government as same.

It is easy to blame the states when the attitude of the Commonwealth is that of “let them eat cake!”

God must be jealous at the amount of blame given by the Howard haters. Just hope it does not rain to much before the next election to spoil your whinging.

Bruce, it's all very well to critise lack of progress in the water debate, but what are your solutions. You give great credit to Mr Howard for being able to virtually singlehandedly control the country but then claim "he is not smart". This seems a bit incongruous.
Can the federal govt "take" control of water or do the states have to "give" control. Why up until now was it necessary to take control of water. The main Murray Darling basin state govts had all intoduced new water mangement acts addressing many of the issues, but obviuosly a prolonged drought postpones the outcome and judgement. To blame it on any govt is ignoring the severity of the drought, and merely political ranting.

There are no excuses for the Government Rojo. Governments have been aware of climate change for over 25 years.

Howard is not failing his mates on water policy.When the smart money has figured out how to maximise profits from the buying and selling of water futures and options, when ownership of water is cornered by Turnbull's mates in the stockmarket and the banks have a stranglehold on all land 20 klms either side of all the rivers in Australia then the spin will stop.Game over. Should take another year or two as progress in this direction is well advanced.

While i can agree with Bruce that Howard will use the issue to spin the public and wedge the opposition, I expected a bit more substance in this post. Labor has now offered to buy back licences, presumeably at market prices and that it take over federally. Is this a goer?
The idea of an independent water commission to advise the Government sounds reasonable, but what powers would it have? If like the Productivity Commission then the Government can simply ignore the findings of commissioned studies, such as the PC's wide ranging findings on land management practices a few years ago. Their call for a legally binding 'duty of care' of landowners toward their acreage didn't get much attention from Howard's lot. this drought and climate change almost make it necessary for such a water commission to have powers equivalent to the Reserve Bank board setting interest (re:water) rates and more.

What water crisis? The number of new arrivals is well over 100,000 so the federal government is oblivious to any water crisis.

I wonder what Mr Rudd would do? Some years ago he was party to cancelling the Wolfenden Dam proposal in south east Queensland.If this hadn't happened the present water crisis in this area wouldn't have occurred.

This article should have simply been titled "Howard is failing Australia on Policy"

Thankyou for the comments.The issue of the sustainable use of water in Australia really should be placed above politics.It should fall into the same category as the 500 year and ongoing program of the Dutch to reclaim and protect low lying land from the sea.
In my opinion the sustainable use of water is the single biggest challenge facing our nation and should be addressed as such.
Australians have the innovative capacity and strength of character to solve this issue.
I look to the federal government to provide the leadership to adress this issue but maybe that is a vain hope and perhaps a vain hope from both sides of politics.
I thought I had made a case for a stand alone organisation to address the issue of the sustainable use of water.
But let me reiterate, in my opinion we need an organisation of substance and independence to address and provide policy options over a considerable period of time.Whether this is an enhanced division of the CSIRO or a new organisation matters little except that in the now politicised public service environment of John Howard it should (must) be independent.
I have quite strong thoughts on what I think should be done but as I have seen I am only one amongst many and there are many with better ideas.
My only contribution to this debate but one which is strongly held and heart felt is that a structure is needed to recieve our ideas and to do and asses the research.
If this cannot be done by government then perhaps we should look to see how it might be achieved outside of government.
Its a fine line jup.I don't think an overly prescriptive or directional organisation is the answer but it may well come to that.
I would really like our parliamentary process to pick up on the research and to turn it into workable outcomes supported by legislation.
Bruce Haigh

Bruce Haigh, if you are still reading posts: "In my opinion the sustainable use of water is the single biggest challenge facing our nation and should be addressed as such" misses the big picture.

The sustainable use of water is nothing more than a subset, one of many within the fundamental problem; although it might be the first subset to most clearly manifest itself.

The fundamental problem is disregard of simple mathematics by politicians, business, society, in "progressing" the nation. By similar disregard, your article is embedded in the problem.

There is mathematical certainty that we are unable to indefinitely continue increasing rates of resource use, such as water. While our population increases, it must be matched by a decreasing rate of per capita resource use. And there is general consensus that we are presently not well-off in relation to water, among many others.

The parliamentary wings of political parties, be they Democrats Greens Labor or Coalition, all support the current rate (about 1.16%) of population increase, which is due to a 1.9 fertility rate plus nett immigration. That rate would double our numbers by 2067. If we are parched now, how tough is the problem being left for our grandchildren to solve?

Bruce, I think it would be great if your articles, such as this one, could acknowledge the basic cause underlying the problem you address. Yes, it is difficult when the retail industry exhorts people to spend more (on essentials?) at Christmas and at every other time of the year; when advertising thunders for growth in consumerism; when the property/business councils, the real estate and housing industries, the media, all proclaim the "benefits", the "necessity" of increased human numbers to underpin increasing rates of consumption of finite resources. And when they push levers of persuasion onto all sides of politics to facilitate such growth.
If only you would incorporate some comment that stability in population numbers and rate of consumption was a necessity, not an impossibility, for continuance of civilised living. And make that a necessary accompaniment to the fixes you propose!

west, models used by NSW govt have previuosly identified what a 1 in 100 year drought will do. Tri-state agreements specify what will happen during such an event, and here we are. Whilst severe drought is expected, how do you plan for such an extreme event. The fact that SA will receive 75% of it's entitlement flow in such an event shows at least some planning took place.
Where a national policy needs to come into place is to plan for anunprecidented repeat next year. Remaining water must be allocated to greatest need, whichever state that is without state bickering.

This article reads like someone with a personal grievance against Howard. However, when Howard became PM in 1996 no water crisis was apparent. Since then, actually since 2000 (when, for example, Sydney’s water supply exceeded 80% capacity), no one could have predicted that El Nino conditions would dominate the next 6 years, resulting in serious rainfall deficits in SE Australia. I think the response by governments at all levels has been reasonable. In the meantime, individuals are doing their bit by installing tanks and water saving devices. People will quickly adapt to change and find solutions to the present crisis, as they already are. We certainly do not need some dictatorial water authority, as suggested by the author, and the belief that such an authority would be a-political is ludicrous. The greatest stress on Australia’s fresh water resources is our constantly increasing population.

Water has been an issue in Australia for both black and white inhabitants.It became an economic issue when white squatters bought up the water holes and river banks in order to control the surrounding land.There have been various responses to wealth creation and population increase including a pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie in the late 19 Century.
Population increase without planning and new infrastructure has put a strain on all resources. Crowding the coastal shelf has not helped to properly uitilise scarce resources and nor has antiquated and inappropriate methods of farming and land use.
You will notice that I have not mentioned salinity which is having an increasing impact on water quality and agriculture.
I first wrote about water quality,salinity and land use in 1980.
A small band of journalists tried to raise levels of awareness in 'The Australian' in the mid to late eighties but the editor, poured buckets on them and not much got into print.It was judged that there was no interest 'out there'.The drought may have caused some to focus on the issue of water, caused others to panic and others to go into denial but as an issue of great importance it has been with us for a long time.
What is new, in my opinion, are governments who are unable to plan for the future.Lacking in immagination,driven by a private enterprise philosophy which frees them from responsibility they are the embodiment of 'she'll be right mate'.
I don't respect Howard and I didn't respect Beazley,who was at UWA at the same time that I was.Can Rudd the builder do it?He has yet to demonstrate that he has some metal.
Not only are both major parties at federal and state level failing to address, plan and co-ordinate around the issue of water, they are failing equally on infrastructure,health and education;and in the federal sphere in defence, foreign affairs and immigration.If the Chinese were not papering over the cracks the goods on offer from both parties would not sell.
Bruce Haigh

Colinsett writes;

“The sustainable use of water is nothing more than a subset, one of many within the fundamental problem; although it might be the first subset to most clearly manifest itself.”

The fundamental problem is the worship of continuous growth. And the fundamental issue that this is in direct violation of is the achievement of sustainability.

Howard’s biggest flaw by far is the promotion of massive growth in population and the consequent continuously increasing demand for water and all sorts of other resources.

In the near future the Australian populace will get their headspace around the fundamental need to stop expanding and to live within our means…. and to bloody well pull back on the scale of demand on stressed resources such as water, instead of just blundering on and increasing the demand!!

Ultimately, Howard’s legacy will be his lack of adjustment towards sustainability, and indeed his strong continued momentum away from it, at a time in our history when there is an IMPERATIVE TO DEAL WITH IT!

My impression from some of the things that Kim Beazley was saying was that he was just starting to get his headspace adjusted towards the basic issues with sustainability and the protection of a healthy society and quality of life… when he lost the opposition leadership.

I was hopeful that Rudd would continue from this point, but alas there is no sign of it.

So that just leaves Howard free to continue on with his rampant antisustainabilityism.

Ludwig "My impression from some of the things that Kim Beazley was saying was that he was just starting to get his headspace adjusted towards the basic issues with sustainability and the protection of a healthy society and quality of life… when he lost the opposition leadership."

Was that the devious Mr Howards doing too, or was it the influence of big business. There must be a conspiracy theory in there somewhere, surely.

Rojo a one in a hundred year drought is statistically based on historical occurrence. Planning for occurrences of drought, bushfire, flood, famine to be effective when needed planning must expect the worst case scenario. In the case of water depletion full merit must be given to the worst drought possible. I am not suggesting we have the technical abilities to survive long term but we could extend our survival ability.

As it happens we are burying precious agricultural lands under urban sprawl. Catchments are depleted through the historical creation of many thousands of small dams. Rice and cotton are grown depleting our resources which are undervalued to compete on a global market. Desertification which is essentially the real issue behind our water problems rolls on unabated. What governments are doing is disaster control, rationing (allocating) water. The horse has bolted; there had been no buffer in place. Turnbull’s market forces panacea has already failed and has contributed the greatest to water depletion. Cotton, rice, shiney sparkling cars, gardens of deep green lawn, spa’, swimming pools, water wasting dishwashers, our appetite for North European and North Asian vegetables has (a pun) bled us dry.

Robg climate change was already understood when Howard came in he has no excuse. Much of the work could have been undertaken under the guise of Keating’s better cities. One major outstanding aspect of the Howard Government is that it has always operated with a focus on historical social grievances or very short term economic get rich quick programs and not one policy actually effectively plans for the future. An example is the NHT in which Howard dumped his responsibilities to a civil system of entropy. It has always been a Government which had never offered a light at the end of the tunnel. Australia essentially has no future and I see no indication from Rudd that things will improve as he too seems to hold his focus on religion and historical social grievances.

As far as reducing agricultural use goes, how about outlawing the purchasing of additional water licences, with these to instead be bought back by the taxpayers (who are the ones after all who granted too many licences anyway)? At the moment there is a monumental shift towards ownership of water rights by big business. This shows up in the rice growing areas of the country, where many small farmers are selling off their water licences seperate to the land, to large scale producers. Whilst these large producers may have benefits from economies of scale that the small producers dont, they also dont have the natural incentives to look after the resources that they have. If reducing the number of licences is a priority, then these corporate farms should not be allowed to purchase anymore on the market.

You might ask, why are these small farmers selling off their water, when it provides the backbone of their business? Simple, given 0 allocations for several years running, but STILL having to pay for the water that they dont get, is a quick way to go broke. Some producers are having to pay upwards of $50,000 for water that they are not getting, and therefore not being able to produce an income. Most people will not seriously object to a user-pays system, but are rightly deeply offended when asked to pay for something that they will never receive.

Rojo, the doings of the devious Mr Howard should have been enough to drive any opposition leader to address sustainability issues in a concerted manner and thus set their party up as a distinctly different and very appealing alternative to the incumbent mongrels.

But the influence of big business is so powerful that it keeps all political ‘subordinates’ under the continuous-growth vested-interest profit-motive-reigns-supreme thumb.

The very nature of our political system gives power to big business rather than the ordinary citizen. So in essence the profit-motive or greed-paradigm or political-donations-and-other-support-mechanisms-from-big-companies is the most important factor.

THIS is what drives the opposition to be a shadow of the government rather than a meaningful alternative. They feel that they cannot step out from under the oppressive umbrella of big business or the profit-motive-ahead-of-anything-else-syndrome or the continuous-economic-growth-paradigm… or whatever you want to call it.

But I reckon Kim Beazley could see the light, and started to show it…. perhaps in desperation when he could see the end of his leadership looming….or perhaps after reading the Online Opinion Forum or being advised of some of the opinions expressed therein, especially the oft-repeated comments from Ludwig, exhorting him to embrace sustainability in a very forthright and open manner!!

Years ago, I think he showed the same sort of resolve, but then he lost it to overwhelming political forces.

Anyway, he’s gone the way of the dodo… and his replacement is, who looks as though he could be Howard’s little brother, is also acting as though he could be Howard’s little brother, and showing no signs of this enlightenment.

Of course we must halt migration and the population increase. But this is opposed by a) Harry Triguboff and all developers and builders b) Woolworths, Coles and all retailers c) the Tax Department. What to do when other countries like Japan and France are trying desperately to get people to breed more human beings ? What academic/economist can argue for population decrease when the idea is that we'll all be "rooned" if population declines though obviously we're also being "rooned" in our water-deprived country if it increases ? But I don't know anyone who does not want immigration to be cut back urgently. The first major party to support this will be on a winner.