Salinity crisis
The Howard Governemtn's $1.5 billion non-solution

by Peter Mac

The Howard Government last week offered the state governments a total of 
$1.5 billion in grants as a first step to tackle the environmental crisis 
of salinity. But the scheme does not attack the problem as a national 
crisis that effects the water supply in what is the driest continent on 
earth and renders the land unusable. Instead, the Government has again 
dumped a responsibility that should be dealt with by the Commonwealth on 
the states.

States will be offered financial inducements (with conditions which some 
will most likely reject) and will be left with the responsibility for 
control of land clearance (which they are unlikely to act on).

Salinity is caused by land clearance and/or over-irrigation, allowing salt 
to rise and contaminate water supplies and the soil.

It has devastated huge areas of irrigated land around Australia and is 
dramatically on the increase in areas of Queensland, where land clearance 
has been allowed to go unfettered, with disastrous results, for the past 
several years.

A recent estimate put the total cost to remedy salinity on a national basis 
as $65 billion, to be spent over the next ten years.

The salinity problem has major implications for the continued viability of 
agriculture, and is of fundamental concern for Australia's natural 
environment.

The states will qualify for the grants if they contribute on a dollar-for-
dollar basis, implement specific salinity management plans and prohibit 
land clearing where it would "lead to unacceptable land or water 
degradation".

Greens Senator Bob Brown described the scheme as "a half measure", noting 
that, "It is the carrot without the stick. Missing is the use of 
Commonwealth powers to put an end to the massive land clearance, 
particularly in Queensland, which is a recipe for future salination and 
water degradation costing the nation billions."

Those state governments that have so far allowed land clearance to proceed 
without interference are unlikely to spend money for remedial works, even 
if the Commonwealth pays half the bill, and will certainly not intervene to 
prevent further clearance.

The Queensland Government, for example, has treated the announcement of the 
federal scheme with ill-concealed contempt, and has expressed considerable 
skepticism about the scheme's likelihood of success.

And well they might! The scheme is expected to concentrate initially on 
tradable "water credits". The use of credits is a dubious method for 
achieving environmental objectives, their use could actually result in some 
areas experiencing a worsening of water quality, providing that 
improvements are obtained elsewhere.

The scheme is also very vague in terms of the land clearance issue, and 
leaves the state governments with the responsibility for setting standards 
and timetables, each of which may vary from the other.

The crucial issue of what constitutes an "unacceptable" level of water or 
land degradation is also left to individual states.

Those states worst affected by salinity, such as South Australia, are the 
most likely to set reasonably high standards, although they are all likely 
to be subjected to heavy lobbying by major landholders with a view to 
minimising any control over their operations.

The Queensland Government, which in recent years has presided over the most 
destructive land clearance in Australia's history, is unlikely to 
participate in the scheme, and even if it did so it could confidently be 
expected to set a particularly low standard, based on its performance to 
date.

The use of penalties is crucial to any scheme that aims to reverse land 
clearance and other land management practices that degrade the environment. 
However, the use of penalties was apparently never seriously considered by 
Federal cabinet. 

What is needed for tackling salinity is immediate, firm and decisive 
federal action to achieve long-term sustainability, based on adequate 
research and coupled with adequate funding for remedial works and means-
tested assistance to farming communities.

In contrast, what the Howard Government has offered is a poorly-funded 
pilot project with no real teeth and little possibility of getting the 
assistance or cooperation of the worst-offending state governments.