Sustainability is not a dirty word

The normal economy, that is all activity other than that associated with mining, is in decline.

The management of scarce water resources, in conjunction with the sale of water licenses, means that the state cannot manage water equitably and fairly on behalf of all of its citizens.

Major corporations are in the business of buying these licenses including offshore interests, for perceived future profit when water becomes even more scarce than it is at the moment. They will sell water to the highest bidder, which will not include impoverished country towns or local food producers. They will sell to multi-nationals and major nationals growing cotton and crops for direct export to captive home markets or to previously secured global markets.

In Pakistan local landlords bought the rights to water generations ago, turning small farmers into tenants, and themselves into major landholders, when the price of land fell following denied access to water.

The Howard government failed to support the solar industry, a significant part of which went off shore. Many, if not a majority, of solar panels are now imported. It is an industry in which Australia should have been a world leader but vested interests and lack of will and vision saw an opportunity squandered.

What has all this to do with trade barriers, managing trade and implementing industry policy?

Consideration of this question turns on sustainability. To what extent can we rely on others to sustain an equitable standard of living and the environment for all in Australia?

Do we wish to destroy the local dairy industry and vegetable producers by allowing the major super markets to source from overseas? Cheap prices might have an initial appeal, but what if problems occur in the supply chain at some future point and local consumers are left in the lurch perhaps for some considerable period of time?

What control does a local consumer of imported food stuffs have over the use of pesticides offshore?

Where is the long-term benefit of offshore interests owning the rights to water? Surely access to sufficient potable water, at reasonable cost, is akin to the right of access to pollution free air. It should be an inalienable right. It should be a right managed by government, particularly with the population growth predicted.

Australia purchases most of its big-ticket defence items offshore. What is the threat that these items are purchased to meet? To what extent are items purchased to secure a place within the US defence framework? The costs of the F35 have blown out further than equivalent blowouts on the F III; do we need the F35? Did we need the Abrams tank?

To what extent do we want to be dependent on overseas manufacturers of our defence equipment? During the Vietnam War, Sweden refused to supply contracted Entac missiles because of our involvement in that war, is this sort of dependency healthy? It certainly does not enhance sustainability.