Joke, but no one's laughing

It's just not possible to fix the near-crisis in Australian manufacturing by ignoring the sector's severe industrial relations problems.

Take one example.  The sad joke in the Australian car manufacturing industry is that "just in time" manufacturing is really "just in case" manufacturing.

But why is "just in time" a joke?  Car manufacturing is supposed to be like a river with component manufacturers seamlessly supplying product to the big companies such as Ford and Holden who do the car assembly.

To stay efficient, no company in the supply chain is supposed to hold stock.  Instead, components arrive "just in time".  For this to work, smooth, uninterrupted manufacturing and transport is essential between every company in the supply chain.

But the experience of the Australian car manufacturing industry is that industrial relations dramas cause supply disruptions so frequently that up to four days of stock is required by all manufacturers.  In the industry they jokingly call this "just in case" -- just in case there are more IR problems.

But it's no joke when it costs companies millions of dollars in tied-up cash and interest payments.

This one example, repeated in thousands of small different ways, is why Australian manufacturing is in crisis.  Enterprise agreements are a core manufacturing problem now working against efficient operations.  A manager's capacity to manage is reduced through agreement clauses that stop them controlling rosters, when and how training is to occur, how external labour can be used, and so on.

Any attempt to fix these clauses instantly causes industrial relations disruption.  Occasionally the disruptions are high profile like the this week's Icon Automotive strike, but most are low-key and unreported, involving simple things such as workers suddenly producing faulty products.

The problem is that company managers don't know how to break this cycle of captured inefficiency, other than to shift production overseas.

A great new wave of car component closures has just begun and is unlikely to be stopped.  And up to 3000 jobs are likely to go.

Food manufacturing is similarly afflicted but has a different dynamic.  Large, old plants combined with '50s industrial-style agreements and cultures are common in food manufacturing.  There are few exceptions.  The old plants are reaching the end of their lives.  New plants are hi-tech with few workers, but they must be built on time and on budget.

Unhappily, Australia has a long history of plant construction delays and cost overruns, mainly the result of bad industrial relations.  Singapore, which has higher land and labour costs than Australia, regularly wins new food manufacturing projects because they can build on time, to budget and operate properly.  Australia's approach to fixing the situation to date has mostly been to ignore the problems, hoping they'll go away.

Most commentators blame free trade agreements and lack of training.  State governments think we just need more research and development and some marketing spin.  The Federal Government has billions of dollars of subsidies allocated to car and food manufacturing, which is shaping up as a wasteful sink hole of taxpayer money.

The truth is that free trade and global markets create manufacturing opportunity rather than destroy it.

Australia's manufacturing future lies in niche markets.  But this isn't necessarily a bad thing.  We too often forget that the niches developing in China and soon to emerge in India are larger than any mass market available in Australia.

Ultimately, manufacturers will have only themselves to blame if they fail to fix their domestic issues.

With the new wave of industrial relations legislative reform about to unfold, the heat will be on manufacturing managers to fix their industrial agreements, cultures and practices.  But many commentators claim Australian managers lack the skills, capacity or inclination to do this.

And if this is true, shifting offshore is probably an easier option.

ADVERTISEMENT

Limiting choice is not fair dinkum

The Fair Dinkum Food Campaign is winding its way to Canberra.  It is a farmer protest about cheap imports undercutting domestically grown food.

The protest has financial support from the Tasmanian Government and moral support from Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran.

Such a campaign would be very useful if it drew attention to excessive costs imposed on farmers by governments and unions.  But it's not about that.  Instead it's a whinge that the major food retailers are doing what we pay them to do -- find the best value for the consumer.

The protesters want Coles and Woollies to take domestic produce even if this means higher prices being foisted on consumers.  Imagine farmers' reactions if they were forced to buy locally made tractors rather than from the cheapest source.

Australia has ample land, water availability that is among the world's highest per head (notwithstanding our vulnerability to drought), and a benign climate.  It is, therefore, astonishing that we should find ourselves uncompetitive in vast areas of agriculture.  But the answer cannot be to deny the consumer the cheapest product.

Such policies move us on to the slippery slope of protectionism.  Farmers' anger -- and that of those politicians egging them on -- should be directed into removing the regulatory loads that reduce their competitiveness.  There is any number of these, including:

• Measures that take water from farmers in pursuit of fabricated environmental needs.
• Bans on new dams accompanied by bogus claims that Australia is running out of water resources.
• Measures banning the use of GM technologies.

It is vegetable farmers that are the leading lights in the Fair Dinkum Food Campaign.  Ironically, the Bracks Government permitted trade unions to sabotage the proposed Saizeriya series of factories.  Located around Melbourne, these would have vastly increased the market for Australian horticultural products.

But union intransigence and demarcation disputes stopped the Japanese company in its tracks.

This is only the tip of the iceberg regarding the stranglehold militant unions have on food processing industries.  Especially in Victoria, I have shown how comprehensively union control has hogtied management in the food industry.  Many food processors are simply chugging along waiting to close their facilities once they gradually become outdated.  Few are renewing their plant or expanding to take advantage of the considerable areas of agricultural production in which we are world competitive.

Rather than railing against the symptoms of their lack of competitive, farmers' indignation should be targeted at the causes -- too much regulation and union control of the factories that are the outlets for their produce.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sermons from the left

While some in the media might like to believe otherwise, recent interventions in the industrial relations debate by senior figures from the Anglican, Catholic and Uniting churches are not unprecedented.

Compared with how religious leaders have acted in the past, the behaviour of various churchmen in expressing "concern" about the coalition's policies is positively mild.  As yet priests haven't told their parishioners how to vote, as happened in the 1950s when the Democratic Labor Party split from the ALP.  Nor have archbishops led anti-government protest marches, which was what occurred in the referenda campaigns on conscription during the First World War.  There's nothing new about religion and politics mixing in Australia.

What is unprecedented is that on industrial relations reform the churches seem to have reversed their traditional role as guardian of the underprivileged.  Rather than defending the poor, the low-skilled and long-term unemployed the ones with most to gain from liberalisation of the labour market some religious leaders seem intent on protecting the entrenched privileges of the union movement.  When it comes to the ACTU the interests of its members come first, and reducing social disadvantage is a distant second.

Before religious leaders talk about the prosperous economy and about how there is no need for change, they should consider the facts.  Behind our record low unemployment rate is the reality that Australia has a smaller proportion of those of working age than the United States, Britain or even New Zealand.  There are up to 2 million Australians who want to work but are unemployed, or who would like to work more than they do.

The best way to get an individual out of poverty is to give them a job.  But for as long as this country continues to have one of the highest minimum wages in the OECD many unemployed are condemned to a life of welfare dependency.  Current minimum wage rates exacerbate poverty because there is no incentive for employers to hire someone who, for example, might have poor literacy skills or who has a disability.

If this is an industrial relations system that is working well, as is argued, then one wouldn't want to see a system that was broken.

When pronouncing on the ethics of employment law, churches could at the very least acknowledge there are complex public policy matters at stake which might not necessarily produce simple solutions.

Whether the social safety net should be provided through the industrial relations system or by tax transfers is an issue that doesn't easily lend itself to a "yes" or "no" answer.  The extent to which religious authorities have lost their moral compass is revealed by the fact that while they present industrial relations as a clear black and white issue, some regard acts of terrorism as merely "morally ambiguous".

Those religious leaders who have criticised the coalition's policies have also failed to recognise that the attitudes in the Bible towards the regulation of personal labour are not clear-cut.

In the parable of the talents, Jesus talks of the rewards for those servants who work hard and take entrepreneurial risks.  In contrast, the servant who did no work was "thrown into the outer darkness;  in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".  Of course the Bible can be used to support almost any political position, but in Australia often when the media presents a religious perspective on public policy it is usually one informed by a left-wing interpretation of Scripture.

Earlier this week, on ABC Radio, Treasurer Peter Costello perceptively noted that involvement in the political debate by religious leaders who had a left-wing orientation was welcomed by the media, but conservative religious commentators were condemned as "a danger to democracy as we know it".

The ABC in particular has become obsessed with the rise of the "religious right", while ignoring the dominance of the "religious left" in the public debate.  The Treasurer was absolutely correct when he defended the freedom of religious leaders to comment on government policy.  Importantly, he also added that "just because [a claim] is made by an Anglican archbishop doesn't mean it is right".

The coalition's industrial relations policy deserves to be debated on its merits.  And religious leaders repeating left-wing orthodoxy while relying on "scriptural authority" need to be treated with scepticism.

ADVERTISEMENT

Doing business in Melbourne or Sydney? It's not quite the done deal that it seems to be

When comparing Melbourne to Sydney, it's difficult not to appear simplistic.  After all, competitive jibes between "brassy" Sydney and "elegant" Melbourne have been occurring since Federation.

But it is relevant to compare how important infrastructure and other business deals are secured in Melbourne with how they are achieved in Sydney.  To compare the two cities reveals a lot about the sometimes surprising nature of Australian business culture and its necessary close relationship to the labour/ union establishment.

Sydney is a consummate deal-making town.  Deals stick and operate like this.  There is an intimate, almost seamless connection between Sydney unions, the Australian Labor Party and major businesses.

Sydney unions and the ALP operate almost as one, where deals and trade-offs are made inside and between the organisations, and held tight.

This affects every area of public policy, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.  For example, reform to the crumbling Sydney rail system has long been stymied because rail unions control certain factions and block reform.  But when it came to running transport for the Olympics, the Labor faction system worked superbly to deliver results.

How things operate in Sydney, and in particular what new projects can occur, is always determined by internal Labor deals.  The deal-making is a mystery to an outsider but has clear shape and form to insiders.  Industrial relations is central to the process, "smart" Sydney businesses know this, and deals are formalised through the NSW industrial relations system.

There is nothing sinister about this.  It's just a reality of politics.  But for any large business to operate in Sydney, it must connect closely with the Labor deal-making processes.  This is why some Sydney-based industry associations cultivate close ties with unions and why Sydney business donates much more generously to the ALP than they do to the Liberals.

One thing that can be said for this Sydney deal-making system is that once a deal is struck, businesses can be confident that for the period of any project, the deal will normally stick.

The same cannot be said of Melbourne.  The relationship between Melbourne unions and any state government is always fractured and precarious.  The internal Labor factional disciplines that are common in Sydney are thin at best in Melbourne, and frequently crack.  This can make doing business in Melbourne awkward.

Take the deal to build the Mitcham-Frankston tollway.  When the tender winner was announced, a union enterprise agreement was barely in place.  The Australian Workers Union moved quickly to secure an agreement favourable to the construction project.  However, the CFMEU, bristled, alleged they had been screwed, and demanded entree to the deal.  The industrial agreement was renegotiated involving both the AWU and the CFMEU, but on worse terms for the builder than the AWU agreement.

Further, the CFMEU is currently active in the worker recruitment process to place its operatives in key positions during construction.  It's inevitable that the builder will need to constantly placate the CFMEU during construction on hundreds of small items.  Melbourne deals are like this.  They appear to be settled but keep changing during the life of a project.

In Sydney, such an agreement would normally have been sealed behind the scenes at the time of the tender decision and could be expected to stick.  This is not to say that Victorian governments are incompetent, it's just that they don't have the intimate and solid deal-making relationship with unions of the type that exists in Sydney.

However, the Sydney deal-making environment can also work against business.  NSW has unjust work safety laws in which managers hold high personal levels of liability for work injury and deaths and which can result in heavy personal fines and even jail.  Employees face none of these liabilities.  In this respect, justice has been defiled in NSW -- and it occurred as a result of policy trade-offs involving unions, the Government and some industry associations.  Justice was subverted to the political deal.

Victoria by comparison has introduced new work safety laws that apply liability to managers, employees and everyone in an equitable manner.  The looser Victorian deal-making environment meant that good public and business policy was not rorted by factional deals.

For companies seeking to do business in either city, which system is better, or perhaps more moral, is not really a consideration.

ADVERTISEMENT

Hard to give credits where they're due

A Reference Group headed by National Farmers Federation President, Peter Corish, was appointed by the government in March to develop a "comprehensive policy framework to build, secure and protect Australian agriculture".

The group has since released a position paper which promotes the concept of payments to farmers for environmental services such as biodiversity (for example, the management of wetlands for migratory bird habitats), improved air and water quality.

To be feasible, it said incomes from delivery of environmental services would need to at least offset any reductions in earnings from traditional agricultural enterprises that result from changed management practices.

Many landholders would no doubt be eager to provide environmental services for an agreed recurrent budgetary allocation that at least offsets any reduction in earning from growing cows or cotton.

This won't be straight forward.

There are simply too few tax payers relative to the many environmental services currently provided for free by landholders.

The position paper suggests payments for environmental services could be delivered through "market based instruments".

Functioning markets exist for sulphur dioxide credits in the US and for carbon dioxide in Europe.  The theory is that a cap is placed on pollution emissions then permits equal to the cap are distributed to the polluters.

This type of approach requires transferable rights to be defined and protected by government.

Could this concept be used to develop markets in the sort of environment services demanded of farmers here?

Mick Keogh of the Australian Farm Institute has calculated that current bans on tree clearing in Australia are potentially worth $600 million a year in carbon dioxide equivalents.

He suggests because agriculture is not now part of current carbon trading schemes in Australia, the $600 million is in effect revenue lost to the agricultural sector.

If agriculture were part of a national carbon trading scheme then emitters (such as coal-fired power stations) could theoretically purchase woody vegetation from farmers as carbon equivalents.

The concept of paying for environmental services presupposes the Australian public know what they want from the Australian landscape, and that what they want can be measured.

Better water quality is often mentioned as something people want.  Water quality is relatively easily measured and a lot of information on water quality is collected by both local and state governments across Australia.

Access to this information, however, is difficult.

As a first step towards developing a trade in water pollutants, governments would need to make water quality data publicly available -- in itself a considerable achievement.

I am not sure how applicable in practice the concept of tradable markets in environmental services really is.

If Peter Corish's group are to develop a policy framework to "securing Australian agriculture" it will need to get city Australia to consider what environmental services it really wants, how much these services are really worth, and how best to deliver them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Legislators heed! The burden is proof

Unlike the union-controlled construction industry, the house-building industry is characterised by highly efficient and flexible work practices.  The industry is a haven of industrial tranquillity.  Unions are unknown and instead we have independent businessmen -- sparkies, brickies, plumbers, chippies -- freely contracting with each other.  In the process, Australia has created an industry equal in efficiency to anywhere in the world.

But a dark shadow has been cast across the industry.  State governments seem intent on throttling the industry and on smothering the attempts of first home buyers to get a foot on the property ladder.  The most visible aspect of this is restrictive zoning regulations and land set-aside requirements that have supercharged prices for the new-house-and-land package.  In Melbourne 30 years ago, the house component of that package accounted for 76 per cent;  today it is only 62 per cent.  Land prices have soared as the Government has imposed ever more restrictive zoning laws that reduce the availability of land for building.

As a result of this, according to analysis of about 80 cities in North America and Australasia by Demographia International, Melbourne and other Australian cities are among the worst performers in terms of affordability.  It takes more than twice an average household's income to buy a house in Melbourne than it would take in Houston, Dallas or Pittsburgh.

Concerned about rising house prices, Treasurer John Brumby asked the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission to report on housing regulation.  A draft version of this was issued today.  Unfortunately, the report's terms of reference excluded it from looking at the cancerous growth of regulatory costs associated with the land component of the house-and-land package.

Even so, the report highlights cost increases in the pipeline that will have a distressingly adverse effect on the affordability of housing to the new home buyer.  Chief among these is the state's new 5-star energy housing regulations, which were jubilantly announced on June 30 by Planning Minister Rob Hulls and Deputy Premier John Thwaites.  These foist costly energy-saving requirements on to the hapless new home buyer.  Originally estimated to increase house costs by 1-2 per cent, it has become clear that the solar energy supply now required will add 3-6 per cent to average house costs.  VCEC, in masterly understatement, says the regulation "could be improved to better deliver against its objectives".

An even more odious new regulation the VCEC report asks the Government to reconsider concerns the requirement that each new house install a water tank.  This will be useless in supplementing water availability in a drought but involves a capital outlay of $1895, not to mention the maintenance costs and loss of usable space.  The regulation is an empty but expensive gesture by a Government that is trying to persuade us it is "doing something" about water but is afraid to face the Green apoplexy that would accompany the sensible decision to build a new dam.

THE VCEC report also calls for reviews of other regulatory interventions.  These include the de facto ability of busybodies in local councils to impose variations on the Australian Building Code provisions as a condition of approval.

In addition, the report seeks to lighten the regulatory burden by calling for an increase in the value of renovation work that triggers a need for approval.

Similarly, it calls for a review of practitioner regulation.  In this respect, we have seen an unfortunate growth in "credentialism" over recent years.  In the past, the house builder was normally a tradesman who gained sufficient experience to take on a project management role.  The system of subcontracting greatly facilitated this.

Builders now have to take written tests covering a great number of disciplines.  One outcome has been an increase in people purporting to be "owner-builders" -- accounting for 37 per cent of building permit applications in Victoria last year -- to escape the regulatory restraint.

As a result, provisions have been introduced that require new registered builders to demonstrate a wide range of skills, provisions that will limit the abilities of new builders to enter the market and thereby drive up prices.

The VCEC draft is a timely reminder of how regulation is adding to housing costs.  Governments are imposing more layers of requirements on the industry that result in costs that largely fall on the new home buyer.  They are, in short, a cruel blow by the baby boomers on their children's generation.  It is time to build a bonfire of these regulations so housing affordability is improved.

ADVERTISEMENT

No science and no respect in Australia's anti-whaling campaign

Why is it that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) condones the slaughter of rare whales by indigenous peoples using what are arguable inhumane traditional methods, while ruling against the commercial harvest of more common species by more humane methods?

"Aboriginal subsistence whaling", as it is called, is currently permitted by the IWC for Denmark (fin and minke whales), the Russian Federation (grey and bowhead whales), St Vincent and the Grenadines (humpback whales) and the USA (bowhead and grey whales).  A key condition is that meat and other products from the slaughter must not be sold.

In the lead up to the recent IWC meeting in Ulsan, South Korea, there was no discussion about the quota the Grenadines have in the Caribbean to kill humpback whales even though this species is listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as vulnerable to extinction.

The harvest of smaller species belonging to the suborder Odontoceti (for example, dolphins and pilot whales) is not regulated by the IWC and not discussed.  This includes, for example, the slaughter of long-finned pilot whales by Danish Farosese fishermen by driving the whales close to the shore, then weighing the animals down with ropes attached to stones.  The whales are then stabbed in the blubber with a sharp hook, called a gaff, before being pulled to shore.

In the lead up to the meeting in Ulsan, Australia's Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, travelled the world railing against the slaughter of whales with a complete focus on Norwegian and Japanese whalers.  He called for an end to commercial whaling and suggested the practice of killing whales with grenades was barbaric.  He was quoted in The Australian suggesting, "Anyone who sees a giant and highly-intelligent creature getting harpooned -- having a grenade set off inside its head or inside its stomach and if it doesn't get killed within 20 or 30 minutes they stick an electronic lance in it -- if somebody doesn't get emotional about that there's something wrong with them".  In the same article he was reportedly, "shocked and saddened by recently broadcast images of whale-cooking classes in Japan".

I don't like the idea of killing whales and I am always outraged when science is wrongly invoked to justify politics -- as Japan does to justify the continual harvest of minke whales for essentially cultural reasons.  But I am just as appalled by the bullying and emotive approach taken by the Australian Government.

Norwegian whalers have a long cultural tradition of killing, eating and selling whale products.  The Norwegians argue that minke whaling is an environmentally-sound way of producing food on the basis the harvest accords with the following principles:

1. it is based on scientific advice supported by the best available knowledge;
2. decisions are based on the precautionary principle.  This means that uncertainty about biological data must result in a cautious level of harvesting, and any exploitation must allow a reasonable margin of safety;
3. all harvesting is followed up by monitoring;  and
4. effective control systems are implemented to ensure compliance with regulatory decisions.

The Norwegian Government has demonstrated that its harvest of minke whales is consistent with these principles.  Norway suspended commercial whaling in 1987.  However, after the IWC's Scientific Committee accepted 86,700 animals as the best estimate of the northeast Atlantic minke whale population in 1992, Norway resumed commercial whaling in defiance of the IWC.  Populations of minke whales in this region are now estimated at 112,000.

Whales are harvested according to a strict quota system based on an understanding of population numbers and dynamics.  The 2005 season allows Norwegian whalers 796 minke whales -- up from last year's 670.  The whalers must operate in accordance with strict protocols for killing whales which are deemed humane.  Whales are said to die instantly when struck by a harpoon tipped with the grenade.

Greenpeace is the largest environmental organisation in Australia and made its name by opposing commercial whaling.  In an insightful review (pdf file 46KB) of Greenpeace's early years, Fred Pearce has written, "Greenpeace was far from being the first green group to oppose whaling.  But it was the first green group to ignore the scientific arguments about whale reproduction rates, population dynamics, and how large a sustainable cull might be, in favour of an undiluted ethical argument:  save the whale".  The media war was effectively reduced to the simple issue of whether or not "whales are good".

As a consequence of this campaigning have many Westerners, to quote Ron Brunton writing in The Courier-Mail in 2001, "come to venerate cetaceans, the zoological order which comprises the 80 or so species of whales, dolphins and porpoises"?  It is not unusual for cultures to venerate particular animals.  Orthodox Hindus venerate cows, believing them to possess divine qualities.  But is this a useful basis from which to develop national and international environmental policies for the conservation of species?

Dugongs, like whales, are long lived marine mammals.  They feed on sea grass in northern Australian waters and are slow breeders, suckling a single calf for over 18 months.

Two papers published last year in the British Journal Animal Conservation indicate that dugong populations in the Torres Strait are grossly over-fished.  The Australian Government accepts that about 1,000 dugongs are killed each year by indigenous communities and that this is probably ten times the estimated sustainable harvest.

I respect the rights of indigenous Australians to hunt dugongs and I respect the right of Norwegians and Japanese to hunt whales and trade the products of their slaughter.  But the activity must be sustainable.  It would seem that in this regard the Australian, and perhaps also the Japanese, governments could learn from the reasoned and scientific approach taken by the Norwegians.

The same four principles could be applied to the harvest of dugongs in Australian waters under a strict quota system.  The issue of Aboriginal subsistence whaling needs to be acknowledged and discussed.  Australian Aboriginals and Danish Farosese fisherman may kill the animal with a traditional weapon, but they do this from motorised boats.  And perhaps it is time Australians started to acknowledge that our aversion to whaling is cultural, based on a new-found love of whales, and that we simply don't want to apply reason or science here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Shift must come from within

The unions' public relations machine now in full swing against the Howard government's proposed industrial relations legislation masks a key fact about workplace reform.  Changing legislation is comparatively easy;  the real job is changing workplace relations on the ground in businesses.  In this respect, government is largely a neutered observer.

There is much to suggest that Australian managers lack both the desire and skills to make use of the new legislation when it arrives.

Already, the big players in commercial construction are signing deals with the unions well before they need to and locking themselves out of the reform opportunities becoming available next year.

Over the past decade of enterprise agreement-making, the evidence is that most businesses have voluntarily signed agreements that reduce rather than improve their capacity to manage their businesses.

Recent research has shown that this reduction in capacity to manage also applies to businesses under the award system.  Reduction of capacity to manage is systemic in the industrial relations system.

A key dynamic that causes workplace reform to stagnate or go backwards, even with helpful legislation, relates to managerial career issues.

In the commercial construction sector, the business of winning and finishing jobs is controlled by a small number of big players.  Union agreements serve the purpose of minimising competition.  By locking out reform opportunities, the players seek to ensure that no single business or a new entrant achieves a competitive advantage over the group.  Competition minimisation serves managerial interest, so desire for reform is non-existent.

In the manufacturing sector, managers can't see how they can achieve reform without causing significant business disruption.  The smallest disruption to production will damage a manager's career.  A smarter career move is to take advantage of cheaper production opportunities offshore.

In any sector, this managerial career issue overrides any economic or performance logic favouring workplace reform.  This applies as much to the public service, including education and health, as it does to the private sector.

What will cause reform to happen is competition.

If someone in the Australian construction sector learns to build skyscrapers using domestic housing construction cost structures free of industrial relations constraints, they stand to achieve a cost advantage of about 20 per cent.  Such a player would reap super profits and its managers would be massively rewarded.  If this happened, managers in non-reforming construction companies would quickly be sacked and replaced with reformers.  A rapid cycle of reform would then unfold.

This is what happened under reforms in the mining industry in the 1980s and 1990s in a sector then groaning under the weight of profit-sapping work practices.  This is the situation that today confronts manufacturing.

In mining, major reform in one mine, Robe River, resulted in dramatic business turnaround.  Mine managers across the industry suddenly had the potential of the industry demonstrated to them.  Over the next eight years just about every mine in Australia was transformed.

The hugely productive workplace practices that resulted now underpin the success of Australia's mining sector.  Many other industry sectors have similar latent potential.

The car-component sector is said to be confronting a rapid wind-back in local production that may cost about 2000 to 3000 jobs.  The industry has a potential future but not with the destructive workplace arrangements it confronts, which bear similarities to those that once existed in mining.  But what will determine success or demise in all sectors is managerial capacity.

However, Australian managers have a 100-year culture of management inertia on workplace issues as a result of an industrial relations system that systemically reduces capacity to manage.  The creation of managerial reform know-how, as happened in the mining sector, is a slow process.  There are no courses or training.  Managers feel isolated.

This isolation and management training has to be addressed something the mining industry has institutionalised in very practical ways.

Passing legislation is a first step to workplace reform.  The necessary further steps are far more difficult to achieve and are uncertain.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wrong song on Africa's woes

Leaders of the G8 gathering in Edinburgh tomorrow have become the focus of a concerted global campaign to have them fix the mess that is Africa.

If you believe the Make Poverty History campaigners, Africa's problems are by and large the result of neglect by the West and only leaders from the West, starting with the G8, can put things right.

However, as foreign aid commentator and journalist David Rieff observed in The New York Times, all of this is just "a politically correct version of the imperial impulse to give some money and all will be well, as if the problems of Africa are just the results of our not paying enough attention".

On the weekend, capturing the Zeitgeist of the moment, Nelson Mandela made a public appeal to G8 leaders at one of the Live8 concerts:  "Do not look the other way, do not hesitate ... as it is within your power to prevent a genocide".

All of these words miss the fundamental point that the causes of Africa's woes are internal, not external.  The reasons for Africa's malaise are complex, sometimes rooted in its colonial past but more often than not Africa's biggest problems tend to be in the form of endemic corruption, horrific ethnic conflict, political instability and poor governance.

Rather than protesting in Edinburgh at the G8 Summit, if campaigners and celebrities were really serious about making poverty history, they would have been better advised to be protesting in Tripoli where leaders from the African Union are meeting, and calling on them to govern their countries properly.

Although campaigners say that Africa has a new generation of leaders, in issues such as corruption things have actually gotten worse over the past few years, as measured by the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index.  For example, in 2000 the average African CPI was 3.24, on a scale of one to 10, with the higher the number meaning the lower the corruption.  By 2004, the African CPI fell to 2.87.

Of course the G8 can help Africa help itself.  Here the Live8 demands on the leaders of the G8 are relevant, (although it is difficult to see how these demands would help right now the people of Zimbabwe, whose biggest problem is the madness of Robert Mugabe).  Of the three demands (to cancel Third-World debt;  to dramatically increase foreign-aid flows;  and deliver what they called trade justice), it is trade or, more specifically, lowering barriers to Third-World imports which is the most important contribution the West can make to Africa and the developing world.

The importance of trade is illustrated by the fact that for all the inflated rhetoric about the importance of foreign aid, overseas development assistance flows stand at about $US63 billion ($84 billion) while trade generates $US1.7 trillion for the Third World.

Trade is by far the best weapon in the so-called war against poverty.  Free trade is clearly in Africa's interest.

The problem is that the campaigners are not actually calling for free trade.  They are pursuing something rather dubious, as its name may imply, called trade justice, which in essence rightly calls for an end to Western tariffs and subsidies but then perversely argues that the developing world should be able to erect their own barriers to free trade.

Africa has little to show for the $US1 trillion in foreign aid that it has received in the past 50 years.  Aid has not just been ineffective in Africa;  it's been counterproductive.

Nevertheless, a good deal of the debate has focused on the levels of foreign aid spending by Western governments.  This is predictable as it is non-government organisations behind the Make Poverty History campaign, all of which are hungry for more aid money.

In this respect, the motto of the aid industry should be:  ask not what you can do for Africa, but what Africa can do for you.

While the aid groups and the deep thinkers from the entertainment world have us believe it is the G8 leaders who hold Africa's fate in their hands, the reality is that ultimately it is only Africans and specifically their leaders who can make poverty history.

ADVERTISEMENT

It's all a big snow job

Snowy Hydro is a corporatised business owned by the NSW, Victoria and Commonwealth governments.  NSW is the majority owner.

Snowy's function is to store water for irrigators and to generate electricity.  However, a poor regulatory framework means that Snowy is motivated to operate in ways that have adverse public policy effects.

One regulatory distortion is that Snowy earns nothing from storing water for irrigation, one of its two key functions.  All its revenues come from its other "product", electricity generation.  Although there are regulatory requirements on releases for irrigation purposes, these do not provide the same sharp incentive structure that financial benefits ensure.

One outcome of its poorly designed revenue structure may be a sub-optimal level of water storage to take advantage of needs that arise in droughts.  That at least is the view of one irrigator body, Lakes R Us, which has applied to the National Competition Commission to have the whole of the system declared an "essential facility" so that it can store more water in the high dams.  This would essentially allow storage for much longer periods than is now permissible, rather than the wasteful "use it or lose it" regulatory structure that prevails.

In addition, Snowy's management responds to other poorly structured regulations that bring considerable costs to consumers and other producers.  These include the impact of renewable energy certificates (RECs), the main Commonwealth vehicle to force energy consumers to subsidise high-cost renewable energy.

Snowy has been given an annual baseline level of generation above which it earns RECs that are worth about $40 per megawatt hour (that is, somewhat more than the value of electricity itself).  Because it does not receive penalties for underperforming, it operates its system so one year it generates strongly and the next year it builds up its reserves.  This allowed Snowy to earn about $67 million in essentially phantom RECs in 2003.

Not only did this not contribute in net terms to the largely misguided government policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it actually increased emission levels.  This is because 20 per cent of Snowy's RECs may have been created through pumping water uphill for reuse.  Though the energy used in pumping is netted out from the REC creation, shifting water from an underperforming year to a hard generating year creates a credit.  In pumping water uphill, Snowy uses almost twice as much (coal derived) energy as it produces in subsequent generation.

In addition, Snowy has mastered how to exploit a constraint between NSW and Victoria by generating in such a way that it, and not its Victorian competitors, has monopoly access to NSW during rare half-hour periods when the price is very high.  It is estimated that last year Snowy earned about $40 million through using this mechanism.

It might be argued that none of this matters.  After all, Snowy is a government-owned firm and it is earning profits that are transferred back to the public shareholders.  However, robbing Peter the electricity consumer to pay Paul the taxpayer creates considerable inefficiencies.  Additional costs follow from activities by other energy producers and energy retailers to reduce their exposure to the price distortions that emerge from Snowy's manipulation of regulatory opportunities.  Moreover, the inflation of Snowy's profits as a result of it taking advantage of a distorted regulatory structure may have been a motivating factor for its investment spree, which has resulted in it buying a retail business (RED Energy) and a new gas-fired generator south of Melbourne.  None of the private shareholder owned energy businesses saw a commercial case for building such a facility at this time.

Governments are whipping up a crisis in water with their propagandist exhortations and regulations designed to force conservation on urban households.  Any shortages of urban water in eastern Australia are pure governmental contrivances that could be readily resolved by a new dam.  The real issue, however, concerns efficient water use for the other 90 per cent of water that is used in irrigation and industry.

The Lakes R Us application highlights some major distortions to water regulation.  These and the regulatory loopholes that Snowy's management has been skilfully exploiting should be the catalyst for a comprehensive review of Australia's most important water/ hydro electricity business.

ADVERTISEMENT

Australia's Environment Undergoing Renewal, Not Collapse

Occasional Paper

ABSTRACT

In his new book Collapse Jared Diamond contends that the Australian environment is generally unproductive and has been irreversibly damaged by European farming, forestry and fisheries practices.  Diamond reflects a popular view that is continually reinforced by environmental campaigning in Australia.  The reality is more complex.  Many Australian farms are amongst the most productive and sustainable in the world and in some situations have successfully broken natural cycles of low fertility.  There are many examples where in the past there has been over-exploitation resulting in environmental damage.  However government policies now tend to favor conservation over industry.  Many once productive forests and fisheries are now closed to harvesting.  These areas have become part of Australia's increasing reserve systems.  By ignoring the evidence of ecological renewal and suggesting there is everywhere an environmental crisis, Diamond spreads misinformation and makes it difficult to identify the remaining real environmental issues that do need to be addressed.

1. INTRODUCTION

In his new book Collapse (2005), Jared Diamond reviews the state of the Australian environment.  In the chapter titled "Mining Australia" (Chapter 13) he states that:

• Australia is the most unproductive continent (380) with low crop yields (381);
• Australia's fisheries, forests and farmlands have been mined and over-exploited (382);
• Land degradation has resulted from clearance of native vegetation, overgrazing, soil erosion, weeds and salinisation (399) and is causing deteriorating water quality with damage to the Great Barrier Reef and Murray-Darling River systems (399, 407);
• Climate change is exacerbating these problems of overexploitation and environmental damage (379).

The chapter contains no data, no tables or figures showing past or current trends with respect to particular indicators, and Diamond makes no reference to particular studies.

Diamond concludes the chapter with comment that the Australian government should voluntarily phase out agriculture:  "It would be a first for the modern world if a government voluntarily decided to phase out much of its agricultural enterprise in anticipation of future problems, before being forced in desperation to do so."

In this review I consider Diamond's specific claims against the available evidence.

2. AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE

CROP YIELDS

Diamond is unambiguous about one of the major problems with Australian agriculture:  "a larger area of land has to be cultivated in Australia than elsewhere to obtain equivalent crop yields" (381).  This claim can be relatively easily tested by comparing how many tonnes per hectare of particular commodities are produced in Australia relative to other countries.

More than half of the world's population depends on rice as their main source of calories and protein.  Australia has a large rice industry based on irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin which produces and exports enough rice to feed 40 million people a meal each day every day of the year (FAO 2005).  Australian rice growers are amongst the most efficient and productive in the world, producing more than double the world average of 3.77 tonnes per hectare (Table 1) (Duwayri et al. 2000).  Furthermore, Australian rice growers have improved their efficiency of water use by 60 per cent over the last 10 years and now use 50 per cent less water for every kilogram of rice produced, compared to the world average (Australian Rice Growers Association, 2005).

Table 1.  Rice yield in selected countries

	Average yield (t/ha)
Country	1966-68	1995-97
China	3.12	6.17
Indonesia	1.89	4.42
Vietnam	1.81	3.73
Egypt	4.95	8.25
USA	4.96	6.74
Australia	7.33	8.23
World Average		3.77

Source:  Duwayri et al. (2000).

Cotton is another significant Australian export, also grown in the Murray-Darling Basin.  Again Australia produces more than double the world average on a tones-per-hectare basis (Table 2).  Australian cotton producers have not only maintained high yields but by employing genetically modified (GM), insect resistant cotton varieties, they have achieved an average reduction in insecticide use of a phenomenal 88 per cent (Higgins and Constable 2004, Australian Government 2004).

Table 2.  Cotton yield in selected countries

Country Yield	(kg/ha)
Australia	1672
Syria	1318
Turkey	1248
China	1177
Spain	1159
Brazil	1151
Ègypt	937
United States	745
World Average	638

Source:  Cotton Australia (2005).

Over 85 per cent of the sugar produced in Australia is exported.  Australian sugar producers are amongst the most efficient in the world on a tonnes per hectare basis (Table 3) (LMC International 2004).  However, the protectionist policies and agricultural subsidies of the US, Europe and Japan, which depress the world sugar price by an average 40 per cent (Seales et al. 1999), make it increasingly difficult for Australian producers to stay economically viable.

Table 3.  Sugar yield by region

Region	Sugar per hectare
USA (Hawaii)	12947*
Colombia	11187*
India (Tamil Nadu)	10900
Australia (Herbert/Burdekin)	10439
South Africa (Nortern Irrigated)	9860
India (Maharashtra)	9600
USA (Florida)	9374
Mexico (Pacific)	9204
Australia (Southern Queensland)	8316
China (Guangxi)	8083
Australia (Northern Queensland)	7875
Australia (Central Queensland)	7752
Brazil (C.S.)	7260
Mexico (Gulf)	7215
USA (Louisiana-Texas)	6432
Thailand (North East)	6363
China (Yunnan)	5700
Thailand (Central Plains)	5664
India (Uttar Pradesh)	5529
Thailand (North)	5529
South Africa (Kwa-Zulu Natal)	5311
Phillipines	4838
Brazil (N.E)	4753
Indonesia	4554
Pakistan	3956
Cuba	2156

*This figure may have not been adjusted for the 2-year crop cycle in Hawaii and Colombia.

Diamond does not specify which crops yield so poorly in Australia, but he does make specific mention of oranges.  Diamond claims that, "it is cheaper to grow oranges in Brazil and ship the resulting orange juice concentrate 8,000 miles to Australia than to buy orange juice produced from Australian citrus trees."  Australia currently exports almost three times the quantity of citrus it imports (ABARE 2004).  During the 2003/04 financial year Australian producers exported navel and valencia oranges worth AUD $107 million (ibid).

Indeed, Australia exports most of the food it produces with crop exports valued at AUD $13,269 million in 2003/04 (ibid).  Wheat was the highest earner worth AUD $3.475 billion in the 2003/2004 financial year.

Wheat is one of the few Australian crops with a yield that is well below the world average (Table 4).  The very low yield per hectare for Australian wheat reflects the economics of wheat-growing in Australia, since superior agricultural land is used to grow crops that have a relatively higher value.  Australian wheat is generally not irrigated and growing regions are amongst the driest in the world (Donath and McGarrity 1976).  Nevertheless Australia produces and exports relatively large volumes of wheat and other cereals because land is not scarce relative to other OECD countries.  Tremendous economies of scale can be achieved, and the industry is highly mechanised (Southgate, forthcoming).

Table 4.  Wheat yields by region

Country/Region	Yield (100 kg/ha)
Australia	20.1
World average	26.8
Europe	44.4
North America and Canada	27.7
South America	25.5
Asia	27.9
Russian Federation	15.8
Africa	22.3
Oceania	20.3

Source:  Makarov (2005), International Grains Council (2005).

The evidence contradicts Diamond's claims about Australian agriculture:  it is highly productive with some commodities achieving double the world average on a tonnes per hectare basis.

MINING THE SOIL

Diamond suggests Australian farmers have irresponsibly mined the country's soil resource with "soil nutrient exhaustion" identified as a type of land degradation (398).  Diamond states that Australian soils are naturally unproductive because they are "so old" that they have become leached of nutrients (380) and are thus are more susceptible to mining.

This argument is flawed.  Any agricultural system that does not apply fertiliser or manure at cultivation would be "mining the soil resource".  The more nutrient rich the soil is, the more potential there is for mining to occur.

Since the time of European settlement, fertilisers have been applied to Australian soils to raise the base level of plant nutrients in the soils, and also to replace nutrients removed by the previous harvest.  Contrary to Diamond's assertion that Australia's soils are poorer now than they were at the time of European settlement, in his book Natural Gain in the Grazing Lands of Southern Australia, agronomist David Smith documents how European settlers broke what was previously a cycle of low fertility by adding plant nutrients (e.g. super phosphate) and new plant species (e.g. subterranean clover) -- with the result that large amounts of atmospheric nitrogen and solar energy could be (and were) captured by the developing grazing and broad acre cropping industries.  Smith describes this process as one of "natural gain" (2000).

In the past two decades there has been a second revolution in Australian farming, through the adoption of minimum tillage cultivation systems.  For example, adoption of green cane harvesting and trash blanketing (GCTB) in the sugar industry has greatly reduced the potential for soil erosion and greatly increased the potential for improvements in soil structure by facilitating the return of organic matter.

The speed of adoption of GCTB in the sugar industry greatly exceeded the expectations of the Australian Conservation Foundation, which had predicted less than 50 per cent of sugarcane farmers in the Mackay region would adopt the minimum tillage systems by 2000 -- yet over 85 per cent of Mackay cane growers used the GCTB system by 2000 (Geno, 1996).  Under a GCTB system, soil loss is equivalent to levels in a natural rainforest situation (Johnston et al. 1997).

KILLING THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

The move to more environmentally friendly farming practices, the phasing out of many insecticides and the adoption and promotion of a voluntary code of practice among farmers, did not stop the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) from launching an attack on the sugar industry in June 2001 (Wood, 2002).  Diamond repeats propaganda from this campaign, which claims that reef waters have become more turbid and are now killing the Great Barrier Reef (400).

Despite an absence of supporting data, the WWF campaign resulted in calls to "reduce the impacts on the Great Barrier Reef of land based sources of nutrients, sediment and pollution" and finally in the legislating of impractical water quality targets with statutory effect.

A case study by Wood (2002) reviews the research papers provided by the scientists and activists as the "best evidence" for an agriculture impact on the Great Barrier Reef.  This information indicates that mangrove dieback has occurred at least once in one region, seagrass beds have expanded in at least one region, and the ability of some reef communities to grow coral has changed.  Two papers provide evidence for traces of human-made chemicals in marine sediments, but there is no evidence to suggest that these very low, but detectable levels, currently have any impact on the Reef (ibid, Marohasy, 2003a).

The health of corals can be reliably measured through coral cores, which measure and compare calcification rates dating back to the 1400s.  These studies have demonstrated that during the 20th century, calcification rates (i.e. coral growth rates) increased by an average of 4% across the reef system including corals of the inner shelf (Lough and Barnes, 2000).

There is no evidence of deteriorating reef water quality (Furnas et al. 1995).  The inner reef (within 15km of land) is naturally nutrient rich and very muddy (Larcombe and Woolfe, 1999;  Larcombe, 2001).  Contrary to popular perceptions, inner shelf corals and many inshore underwater communities thrive under conditions of relatively high turbidity.  Furthermore, published studies indicate that sediment input from land-based sources, even under flood conditions, is far less than that held in suspension by natural swell waves on more than 200 days per year in the naturally muddy inner shelf of the central Great Barrier Reef.  While the inner reef is naturally muddy because of sediment deposition that has occurred over many thousands of years, the middle and outer reef are sediment- and nutrient-starved, and the extraordinary event that results in some land-based nutrient and sediment getting beyond the inner reef may be beneficial to these systems.

In summary, contrary to what Diamond ascertains, the available evidence indicates the Great Barrier Reef is healthy.

IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE

Diamond states that 80% of Australia's agricultural profits are derived from less than 0.8% of its agricultural land (413).  It is unclear how Diamond derived this statistic and how he calculated profit.  Irrigated agriculture occupies less than 0.5% of the agricultural land in Australia and in an average year contributes approximately half of total agricultural profits (Hajkowicz and Young 2002) and 26% of total gross value of production (Commonwealth of Australia 2001).  Perhaps Diamond was extrapolating from this data.

Diamond goes on to suggest that because most profit is derived from a relatively small land area, most of the land mass of Australia supports unproductive and unprofitable agricultural systems (413).  This argument is flawed.  It does not follow that because, for example irrigated agriculture is profitable, the rest of Australian agriculture is unprofitable, though it is apparently less profitable.  Australian agriculture would be much more profitable if the US, Europe and Japan did not subsidise their agricultural industries.

Much is made of Australia as the driest inhabited continent on earth;  calculated on the basis of available water on a per hectare of land mass basis.  Because Australia is very large, and because Australia has some large desert, this approach hides the reality of Australia's tremendous water resources.  Indeed according to the World Resource Institute, Australia has 51,000 litres of available water per capita per day.  This is one of the highest levels in the world after Russia and Iceland and well ahead of countries such as Indonesia (33,540), the United States (24,000), China (6,000) and the United Kingdom (3,000 litres per capita per day) (Lomborg, 2001).

Less than 5% of the water that falls on Australia is diverted for use by agriculture, industry and cities.  Most rain falls across northern Australia.  There are large tracts of extremely fertile land in the north that are undeveloped.  Environmental activists demand that these areas remain untouched.  Where there is an established water infrastructure supporting irrigated agriculture, for example in the Murray Darling Basin, agriculture has been subject to relentless campaigning to return water to river systems as environmental flow.

SALINISATION

Diamond suggests that salinisation has rendered much of the most highly productive farmland in Australia "less productive or useless" (402).  The Australian Bureau of Statistics Land Management Survey 2002 indicates that two million hectares of agricultural land shows signs of salinity with 70% of the area affected being in Western Australia.  This represents 0.2% of all farmland.

Much has been made of the potential for salinity to worsen in Australia but no data exists to suggest the areas at risk (drylands or irrigated land) have actually increased over the last decade.  There are examples where the area at risk of salinity has contracted significantly.  For example, in the mid 1980s, modeling indicated that 127,000 hectares of irrigated land in New South Wales had water tables within 2 metres of the surface and was at high risk from irrigation salinity.  Furthermore, this area was thought likely to increase to 331,000 hectares within the next 50 years (Figure 1).  Remedial action was taken, and the area at risk of salinity is now less than 14,000 hectares -- this represents a reduction of approximately 90% (Wood, 2003).

Figure 1.  Area Considered at Risk of Salinity & Area actually affected by shallow water tables compared to area expected to be affected in the Murray Irrigation Area.Source:  Wood, 2003

Diamond also claims that rising salt levels will render Adelaide's drinking water too salty for human consumption in an unspecified and contingent future (pg. 402).  There were problems with rising salt levels in the Murray River in the 1970s, but through the construction of salt interception schemes and improvements in on-farm drainage, the problem has been fixed.  Salt levels at the key site of Morgan (just upstream from the off-shoots for Adelaide's drinking supply) have in fact halved over the last 20 years (Figure 2).

Figure 2.  Salinity at Morgan Yearly averages for salinity (EC micro Siemens per cm) at MorganSource:  Data provided by the Murray Darling Basin Commission on 21st September 2004

GENERAL TRENDS IN FARMING

While the percentage of Australia's land mass cultivated for crops or as sown pasture has remained steady at 6% since the early 1980s (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003), there has been a 25% increase in the area under irrigation and a reduction of 19% in the total number of farms (Wolcott et al. 2004).  There has been a general shift from livestock production into cropping because cropping has generally become more profitable (O'Donnell, 2005).

The total value of Australia's agricultural exports is forecast to be $28.2 billion in 2005-06.  This is an increase of $237 million on 2004-05 (ibid).  There is no evidence for general yield decline in Australian agriculture as claimed by Diamond, rather through technological innovation there has been continuous improvement (Heggeler 2004).  Australia is not unique in this regard with the world's farmers managing over the last 40 years, with the help of technology (including fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation and new varieties), to now produce approximately twice the amount of grain and oil seed from essentially the same area of land (Chrispeels and Sadova, 2003).

At the same time, Australian agriculture has generally become more environmentally friendly through methods such as improved water use efficiency, minimum tillage cultivation systems and GM crop varieties that require fewer pesticides.

3. AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES

In volume terms Australia is a small seafood producer ranked 53rd in the world (Hanna et al. 2005).  But by value Australia is more significant ranked 21st.  Australia imports relatively large volumes of low value fish and crustaceans, and exports relatively small volumes of high value fisheries products (ibid).  Australia produced $2.2 billion worth of fisheries products in 2003-04.  Aquaculture production has increased by 80% over the last decade and now accounts for 16% of total production by volume (ibid).  By comparison the wild catch has increased by only 7%.

Yet Diamond claims that Australia's freshwater and marine fisheries have been "mined", with one fishery after another depleted to uneconomically low levels (406).  Diamond lists several marine species as examples, but provides no information or data to support his thesis.  His single freshwater example is the Murray cod fishery which Diamond claims has been "closed because of the decline and collapse of the catch."

In this section I summarise the available information for all the species which Diamond claims as at risk of overfishing.  Official fishery status reports are available for school sharks and for many of the trawl species including tiger flathead, orange roughy, eastern gemfish and southern bluefin tuna (AFFA 2004).  Information on Exmouth gulf tiger prawns was sourced from the Department of Environment and Heritage.  Both coral trout and Murray cod are caught by line fishing and there have been no recent status reports on these species.  Both species have been the subject of sustained environmental campaigning and the available evidence on species abundance is not easily reconciled with popular perceptions.

EXMOUTH GULF TIGER PRAWNS

The prawn referred to by Diamond as the Exmouth gulf tiger prawn is more normally referred to as the common brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus).  This species, endemic to Australia, has an established wild fishery from Moreton Bay in south eastern Queensland to Exmouth Gulf in northern Western Australia.  This extensive wild prawn fishery is supplemented by a prawn aquaculture industry worth more than $64 million in 2004, and growing (AFFA 2004).  The prawn fishery specific to the Exmouth Gulf includes a total of four prawn species and has a total value of about $13 million.  The fishery is heavily regulated with management controls on vessel number, size and power.  Since 1999 there have been extended closures of this fishery aimed at increasing its overall economic efficiency and sustainability.  Two commercial boats are used to collect fishery-independent data to understand the level of tiger prawn recruitment and spawning each year.  Based on this information the fishery is currently considered sustainable by the Australian Government's Department of Environment and Heritage (Department of the Environment and Heritage 2002).

TIGER FLATHEAD

The tiger flathead trawl fishery (Neoplatycephalus and Platycephalus spp.) is part of what is known as the South East Fishery and managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).  Current catch-levels appear sustainable.  The annual catch from trawl and non-trawl sources has slightly exceed the agreed total allowable catch (TAC) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.  Tiger Flathead:  Total Catch 1992-2002 TAC is the Total Allowable CatchSource:  Fisheries Status Reports, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests (2005)

EASTERN GEMFISH

The Eastern Gemfish (Rexea solandri) is also part of the South East Fishery and currently classified as overfished (Figure 4).  According to AFFA more stringent management measures are needed to protect spawning aggregations and juvenile fish including by reducing losses through trawl bycatch.  There are currently no formally agreed recovery plans for rebuilding this fishery.

Figure 4.  Eastern Gemfish:  Total Catch 1992-2002 TAC is the Total Allowable CatchSource:  Fisheries Status Reports, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests (2005)

ORANGE ROUGHY

Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) was only discovered in commercial quantities in Australian waters in 1981.  Rapid exploitation of this fishery followed and by 1990 there was evidence of overfishing.  Since 1990 management zones have been created with the aim of protecting and rebuilding the fishery.  The actual total allowable catch (ATC) closely correlates with the agreed total allowable catch, however, according to a 2001-2002 AFFA assessment, the AFMA should close this fishery.

SOUTHERN SHARK FISHERY

Catches of school shark (Galeorhinus galeus) declined sharply in the early 1970s, when concerns over mercury content led to a legal maximum size for sale (Figure 5).  The recent decline in catch is due in large part to quota restrictions.  The total allowable catch (TAC) for 2002 was set at 327 tonnes, in line with the agreed harvest strategy.  A catch of 197 tonnes was reported.  The quotas are intended to enable the mature biomass to rebuild by 2011 to above the 1996 level with an 80% probability.

Figure 5.  Gummy and School Shark:  Total Catch and Effort 1970 to 2002Source:  Fisheries Status Reports, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests (2005)

SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA

Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) is currently classified as overfished (AFFA, no date).  The fishery is shared with Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea and New Zealand.  The total global catch peaked in 1961 at 81,605 tonnes and was then in general decline for three decades, Figure 6.  Since 1990 the total catch has ranged from between 13,231 tonnes (1994) to 19,588 tonnes (1999).  Stock assessments suggest that the parental biomass is low but stable and unlikely to recover to target levels unless all countries agree to abide by national allocations as determined by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.  Australia operates within its allocation, Japan has not agreed to operate within its allocation, and Indonesia does not recognise the Commission.

Figure 6.  Southern Bluefin Tuna:  Total Catch 1950-2001Source:  Fisheries Status Reports, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests (2005)

CORAL TROUT AND THE GREAT BARRIER REEF FISHERY

Coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) has a distribution from the Red Sea to the West Pacific.  Coral trout are the most heavily line fished species on Australia's Great Barrier Reef.  The fishery is monitored by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) but there have been no published assessment reports that provide quantitative long term trend data on species abundance.

The Queensland Department of Primary Industries has data on catch per unit effort for the aggregate Great Barrier Reef commercial line fishery.  This information indicates the fishery is sustainable as there has been no decline in the harvest rate (Ayling and Ayling 1983a, 1983b, 1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1986).  The annual yield for the entire Great Barrier Reef has been calculated at 17 kg/km².  This is very low relative to other Pacific Reefs which average 7,700 kg/km² with a sustainable yield calculated at 10,000 kg/km², Figure 7 (Adams et al. 1996, Ayling and Ayling 1983b).

Figure 7.  Annual Yield of Pacific FisheriesSource:  Based on Adams et al. (1996).  Drawn by Walter Stark.

Diamond suggests that the "low productivity" of Australia's fisheries (406) is a consequence of overfishing, but in the case of the Great Barrier Reef, the low productivity is a direct consequence of ever greater limits placed on the commercial and recreational catch.  These restrictions have been driven by environmental campaigning that has created the perception that there is overfishing including of coral trout.  The most recent restrictions resulted in many popular fishing areas declared "Green Zones" with all fishing banned from these areas.

The GBRMPA has commissioned many surveys of coral trout beginning in the early 1980s and this body of information now totals hundreds of surveys across the entire reef system.  According to the recreational fishing lobby, these studies make up the most extensive and long term body of population information available for any reef fish anywhere in the world, but remain unpublished and difficult to access.  The information indicates coral trout numbers are not in decline but rather increased during the 1980s and 1990s (Stark 2003).

Survey results based on counts of live fish indicate that:

• Average density of coral trout at three regularly fished reefs off Townsville was 34/ha in 1983, 34.3/ha in 1989 and 66/ha in 1994.
• Average density of coral trout off Cairns was 22.5 fish/ha in 1983 and 31.7/ha in 1991.
• Off the Whitsunday Islands, counts on three reefs found 57/ha in 1984, 84/ha in 1988 and 124/ha in 1994.

MURRAY COD:  A FRESHWATER FISHERY

Murray cod (Maccullochella macquariensis) is native to the river systems of the Murray-Darling Basin and also some coastal rivers in south east Queensland and northern New South Wales.

In July 2003, the species was added to Australia's list of threatened species.  The listing was based on a 30% decline in Murray cod numbers during the previous 50 years as measured by the commercial catch.  This information, as provided in a media release by the Federal Environment Minister, Dr David Kemp, was misleading and factually incorrect (Kemp 2003).  The fishery had been closed in 2001 (two years before the species was added to the list of threatened species) and there had not been a 30% decline over 50 years.  Rather, there had been a crash in total catch in the late 1950s, with the total catch since this time low but stable (Figure 8).

Figure 8.  Total Catch of Murray Cod, 1947-1996Source:  NSW Inland Commercial Fishery Data Analysis,
Fish Research and Development Corporation, 1997

Furthermore, numbers of commercial fishers in the Murray region has varied with a peak of 280 licences operating in 1971, dropping to 40 licences in 1996-97, before all licences were revoked in 2001.  The fishery closure was not a result of a recent of "decline and collapse" as stated by Diamond, but rather the result of environmental campaigning.  Catch per unit effort for the Murray River fishery was actually increasing at the time the fishery was closed (Figure 9).

Figure 9.  Commercial Catch per Unit Effort, 1984-85 to 1995-96Source:  NSW Inland Commercial Fishery Data Analysis,
Fish Research and Development Corporation, 1997

If the apparent collapse in the fishery in the late 1950s was real, and due to overfishing, then numbers of Murray cod should now be on the increase, particularly given the commercial fishery has been closed and given the substantial restocking effort.  Over 3.5 million Murray cod were released into the river system during the 1990s.  Incredibly, it is unclear how populations of Murray cod are faring, as there is no monitoring program in place for this iconic fish species, and because the commercial fishery has been closed there is no commercial catch data.

4. AUSTRALIAN FORESTS

The prognosis according to Diamond is that Australians are cutting down too many trees and as a consequence Australia's forests will disappear long before its coal and iron reserves.  Diamond states that of the trees standing at the time of European settlement in 1788, 40% have already been cleared, 35% have been partly logged and only 25% remain intact (404).  Diamond does not indicate when most of the trees were cut down, or how many trees might have re-grown since 1788, nor does he cite any specific reports or research papers to support his claims.

Since the 1930s, all Australian State governments have created forest services to manage the public forest estate.  There has not been a decline in the area of publicly managed native forest since this time (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2005).

VICTORIAN RED GUMS

Diamond makes reference to "now-felled Victorian Blue Gums" as once possibly the world's tallest trees (404).  Forests in southern Australia were extensively logged during the 1800s with large quantities of timber cut for building and operating riverboats, gold mining and as sleepers for local and overseas railways.  A Victorian Conservator of Forests was appointed in 1888 at a time when there was community concern the forests would be completely destroyed.  At the same time a duty was imposed on timber exports.

The forests re-grew.

Surveys during the 1900s showed that while significant quantities of timber continued to be harvested from these forests, growing stock and saw log volumes increased (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2002).  These forests were mostly managed for "multiple use" including as a source of clean water, for wildlife, recreation and also for timber production.

Diamond suggests that Australia imports nearly three times more forest products than it exports because it has "mined its forests" and there are now none left.  In fact the deficit can be attributed to active environmental campaigning against the timber industry beginning in the early 1980s (Watson 1991).  As a consequence, the larger and once highly productive native forests on mainland Australia are now mostly part of the national reserve system and logging has been banned.  For example the Barmah Forest in north-western Victoria with the largest stands of river red gums in Australia, became a listed site under the Ramsar treaty in 1982, which made it a "Wetland of International Importance".  This forest, once managed for multiple-use, is now managed only for nature.

Since 1992 the National Forest Policy Statement has established Australia's forest agenda.  In 1996 a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) commenced with the aim of setting aside additional reserve areas, and establishing nationally agreed methodologies and criteria for sustainable forest management outside of the reserve areas.

In regions which still support forestry, industry protection of old-growth forest was identified as a priority.  As a consequence, the area of old-growth forest in reserves has increased by 1.2 million hectares and is now 3.7 million hectares (Table 5).  This constitutes 71% of the total 5.2 million hectares of old-growth forest covered by Regional Forest Agreements (Bureau of Rural Sciences 2004).

Table 5.  Area of old growth forest protected ('000 hectares)

State	Total forest	Total old growth	Old growth in reserves
New South Wales	8,992	2,536	1,742
Queensland	3,230	270	166
Tasmania	3,169	1,239	851
Victoria	5,744	841	455
Western Australia 1	2,121	347	233
South Australia 2
Australia Native Forest Total	23,256	5,233	3,447

¹ All old growth forest in WA is protected by Government policy.
² South Australia was not subject to the RFA process.
Source:  Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2003).

TASMANIAN FORESTS

Diamond comments that, "Most of the logging and the fiercest debate are going on in the State of Tasmania, where (old growth) Tasmania Blue Gums … are now being logged faster than ever".  Diamond, however, is confusing Eucalyptus species.  Blue gums are Eucalyptus globulus.  The logging debate in Tasmania is mostly about the Eucalyptus species regnans, delegatensis and obliqua.  It is these species which are often described as the tallest trees outside of California.  Furthermore, contrary to popular perceptions, these tall trees are well reserved as the Tasmanian government policy is to protect tall trees of greater than 85 m (280 feet) (Forestry Tasmania, 2002).

Tasmania has 40% of its total land area and its forests protected in reserves (Resource Planning Development Commission, 2002a) and 95% of its high quality wilderness areas are fully protected (Resource Planning Development Commission, 2002b).  In 2001, 69% of the 1.24 million hectares of old growth forest in Tasmania were protected in reserves (ibid) and this area will increase following recent intense campaigning by environmentalists.

Old-growth forests generally contain higher timber volumes than younger growth stages, and are often intimately mixed with regrowth forests, so access to regrowth areas depends on harvesting associated old growth forest.  Environmental interest groups in Australia want a total ban on the harvesting of these forest types.  Between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2003, 2,680 ha of old growth was clear felled in Tasmania (Forestry Tasmania, 2003);  this represents 0.1% per annum of the current old growth in that State.

LAND-CLEARING IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIA

Over the last decade the highest rates of land clearing occurred in northern Australia's rangelands in association with cattle grazing (Burrows, 2002).  For example, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 470,000 hectares of land were cleared in 1999 alone, with 90% of this clearing occurring in Queensland (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002b).  At the time of European settlement many of these rangeland areas were open grasslands and were formerly maintained as grassland by aboriginal burning (Burrows, 1991).  In the absence of fire, and with grazing pressure, there has been a general and rapid vegetation thickening, resulting in more trees per hectare now than there was at the time of European settlement (Neldner et al. 1997;  Burrows, 1999;  Fensham and Skull, 1999;  Fensham, 1998a;  Fensham, 1998b).  Even during the peak of land clearing which occurred during the 1990s, satellite data showed there was a net increase in forest cover of 5 million hectares (Department of Natural Resources, 2003).  This same data showed, for example, that 26% of all clearing in 2000-2001 was of land that had no trees in 1991.  In short, many cattlemen clear trees in an attempt to maintain once open grassland areas, against a general trend of woodland thickening and forest encroachment.

But Diamond takes the same approach to tree cover as the environmental campaigners.  He does not consider the net change in forest cover, but rather focuses only on how many trees have been cleared.  In short, Diamond assumes that trees do not re-grow!  As a consequence of environmental campaigning that has created a perception in metropolitan Australia that there are ever fewer trees in the remote rangeland areas, legislation was enacted in 2004 that will ban most tree-clearing in Queensland from 2006.

5. AUSTRALIA AND CLIMATE CHANGE

In Diamond's view climate change is exacerbating the environmental damage caused by Australia's primary industries (379).  Citing a decline in winter rainfall in Western Australia's wheat belt as the only example, Diamond suggests that Australia will be a big loser from climate change (385).  This is also the official assessment in Australia.  Reports based on scenario modelling, founded on the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have concluded that it will mostly get drier as it gets hotter (Hennessy et al. 2004;  Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004).  The IPCC, however, has emphasised that "In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible."  Despite this clear note of caution, the output from these models has been reported in the Australian press as a realistic forecast.

Australia's climate has always changed.  Evidence from natural history indicates that rising sea levels drowned large areas of Australia's coastline beginning about 15,000 years ago, which was the end of the last Ice Age.  Notably, while it is thought to have been generally drier in terms of precipitation (rainfall) during the last Ice Age, parts of inland Australia which are now desert were inland lakes during that period, fed by glacial runoff from the Snowy Mountains.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology possesses temperature and climate records for the last 100 years.  While the popular perception is that climate has generally gotten drier over this period, their statistics show that much of Australia, including the relatively heavily populated east coast, has actually become wetter over the last 100 years (Australian Bureau of Meterology).  Southwestern Australia and Western Queensland are exceptions;  these areas have become drier.

According to Diamond, Australian agriculture is contributing to global warming through land clearance.  Through the banning of the land clearance the Australian Government estimates that it will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 24.4 million tonnes.  The woodland thickening and forest encroachment that is occurring across Australia's northern rangelands is not counted in the nation's greenhouse budget.  If it were included, it has been calculated that Australia's total net greenhouse gas emission would be reduced by 25% (Burrows et al. 2002).

6. CONCLUSION

In a world full of information, but much of it spin, it can be very difficult to distinguish propaganda from fact.  Anyone who wants to understand the world as it really is will need to apply a good deal of self-discipline and focus on the evidence.

The central theme of Diamond's book is fascinating -- why some societies collapse and others thrive.  Australia would have made a good case study, as the histories of Australia's primary industries include examples of near collapse and also examples of spectacular renewal.  The importance of secure property rights, environmental activism and utilisation of modern technology are a part of this story.  Diamond, however, ignores these factors and influences while he uncritically accepts propaganda from environmental interest groups.

Diamond set out to write a story about environmental damage and he has not let the facts get in the way of this predetermined agenda.  By relying almost exclusively on secondhand reports from environmental activists, Diamond incorrectly concludes that the Australian environment is on the brink of collapse.  There is no new message in Diamond's trite and inaccurate assessment of the situation.  He simply restates popular perceptions, and then concludes that environmental problems are accelerating exponentially out of control (416).

By evaluating Diamond's specific claims of environmental collapse against the received evidence, it can be concluded:

• Perceptions are not reality.  The Australian environment is not "accelerating exponentially out of control."
• Australian agriculture is generally profitable and high yielding, though profitability is not necessarily linked to productivity.
• Farmers have overcome the low fertility of many Australian soils through the use of fertilisers, manures and nitrogen fixing pastures species.
• Many farmers have reduced the potential for soil loss and erosion through the adoption of minimum tillage techniques.
• The Great Barrier Reef is healthy and not affected by agriculture.
• Australia has significant water resources which continue to be well-managed.  Water efficiency in agriculture is comparatively high on a global scale, and improving.
• Issues of salinisation including rising salt levels in the Murray River have been addressed.  Salt levels in the Murray are now half of what they were when they peaked in the early 1980s, and dryland salinity is not spreading.
• Australia's farmers, foresters and fishers are under intense pressure from environmental activists.
• High profile environmental campaigning, and the success of the same campaigns, does not correlate with environmental need.  For example there has been a successful campaign to close coral trout fisheries where the yield is arguably well below sustainable levels.  At the same time no action appears to have been taken to effectively address all issues of over-fishing in the South East Fishery.
• Several marine fisheries appear to be over-fished, yet there is no formally agreed recovery plan for the same species, including the southern bluefin tuna fishery.
• Australian forests are generally well-managed.
• Changing community values, driven by environmental campaigning, has resulted in large areas of forest that were once managed for multiple-use becoming part of the national reserve system, with logging now banned.
• There has been a general increase in forest cover, particularly in northern Australia.
• Australia's climate has always changed.  Contrary to popular perceptions much of Australia has gotten wetter, not drier, over the last 100 years.

Diamond is a professor of science and his book Collapse has been promoted as a work of non-fiction.  Sadly, the chapter concerning Australia is full of factually incorrect information.  His general philosophical approach and disregard for the evidence is an affront to his profession and to science.  The book is also an affront to the many farmers, fishers and foresters in Australia who have worked hard to address issues of environmental degradation and strive for best practice and ecological renewal.  Furthermore, by ignoring the evidence and denying the good news stories, Diamond prevents an understanding of how and why societies can overcome issue of scarcity and build sustainable primary industries without "collapsing".  By suggesting that there is an environmental crisis everywhere, Diamond makes it difficult to prioritise issues and difficult to discern real environmental need.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Walter Stark, Alan Ashbarry and Bernard Milford for help with not-so-easy-to-find information on fishing, forestry and sugarcane farming respectively.

REFERENCES

ABARE (2004).  Australian Commodity Statistics, Canberra.

Adams, T., Dalzell, P. and Farman, R. Status of Pacific Island Coral Reef Fisheries.  (1996).  8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama.  pp.1-7.

AFFA (2004).  Aquaculture Australia Industry Report, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology.  (no date).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003).  Year Book Australia 2003, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002a).  Land Management Survey, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002b).  Measuring Australia's Progress, Canberra.

Australian Rice Growers Association.  (viewed 14th March 2005).

Australian Government.  (2004).  Annual Report 2003-2004, Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Ayling, A.M., & Ayling, A.L. (1983).  "Distribution and abundance of coral trout species (Plectropomus spp.) in the Cairns section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park."  Unpublished report to Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Ayling, A.M., & Ayling, A. (1983).  "Distribution and abundance of coral trout species (Plectropomus spp.) in the Townsville and Whitsunday area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park."  Unpublished report to GBRMPA.

Ayling, A.M., & Ayling, A. (1984a).  "Distribution and abundance of coral trout species (Plectropomus spp.) in the Swain group of reefs."  Unpublished report to GBRMPA.

Ayling, A.M., & Ayling, A. (1984b).  "A biological survey of selected reefs in the far north section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park."  Unpublished report to GBRMPA.

Ayling, A.M., & Ayling, A. (1985).  "A biological survey of selected reefs in the Central Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park."  Unpublished report to GBRMPA.

Ayling, A.M., & Ayling, A. (1986).  "A biological survey of selected reefs in the Capricorn and Capricornia Sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park."  Unpublished report to GBRMPA.

Ayling, A.M., & Ayling, A. (1992a).  "Coral trout survey data:  raw data sheets and abundance summaries from all surveys of coral trout species (Plectropomus spp.)" carried out by Sea Research for the GBRMPA between Feb. 1983 and July 1986.  Unpublished report to GBRMPA.  1986.

Ayling, A.M., & Ayling, A. (1992b).  "Visual surveys on Cairns Section closed reefs that will be opened under the new Zoning Plan."  Unpublished report to the GBRMPA.

Bureau of Rural Sciences (2004).  Science for Decision makers -- Old Growth Forests in Australia, Canberra.

Burrows, B. (1999).  "Tree clearing -- rehabilitation or development on grazing land?" IV International Rangelands Conference, Townsville, Australia.

Burrows, W.H. (2002).  "Seeing the wood (land) for the trees -- An individual perspective of Queensland woodland studies (1965-2005)", Tropical Grasslands 36:  202-217.

Burrows, W.H. (1991).  Sustaining productive pastures in the tropics 11.  An ecological perspective.  Tropical Grasslands 25:  153-158.

Chrispeels, M.J. and Sadova, D.E. (2003).  Plants, Genes and Crop Biotechnology, 2nd edn, American Society of Plant Biologists, Los Angeles.

Commonwealth of Australia.  (2001).  "Australian Natural Resource Atlas:  Agriculture".  National Land Water Audit.  (Viewed on 16th March 2005).

Cotton Australia (2005).  (Viewed 15 March 2005).

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2003).  National Forest Inventory.

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2005), Changes in Forest Cover, 1788-1980.  (Viewed 8 March 2005).

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (no date), Fishery Status Reports.  (Viewed 8 March 2005).

Department of the Environment and Heritage, Assessment Report of the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery, Canberra 2002.

Department of Natural Resources.  (2003).  Land Cover Change in Queensland 1999-2001.  Queensland Government, January 2003.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (2002).  Forest Management Plan for the Mid-Murray Forest Management Area, Melbourne.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004).  Securing our Water Future Together, Victorian Government White Paper, Melbourne, June.

Diamond, J. (2005).  Collapse:  How societies choose to fail or succeed.  London:  Vintage.

Donath, E.J., McGarrity, J. (1976).  Wheat in Australia, Oxford University Press.

Duwayri, M., Tran, D.V., Nguyen, V.N. (2000).  "Reflections on Yield Gaps in Rice Production:  How to Narrow the Gaps", in:  Papademetriou, M.K., Dent, F.J., Herath, E.M. eds., Bridging the Rice Yield Gap in the Asia-Pacific Region, FAO, RAP Publication:  2000/16.

Fensham, R.J. (1998).  "The influence of cattle grazing on tree mortality after drought in savanna woodland in North Queensland."  Australian Journal of Ecology 23:  405-407.

Fensham, R.J. (1998).  "Resolving biomass fluxes in Queensland woodlands."  Climate Change Newsletter 10:  13-16.

Fensham, R.J., and Skull, S.D. (1999).  "Before cattle:  A comparative floristic study of Eucalyptus savanna grazed by macropods and cattle in North Queensland, Australia".  Biotropica 31:  37-47.

Food and Agricultural Organisation (2005).  (Viewed 14th March 2005)

Forestry Tasmania (2002).  Giant Trees Policy.

Forestry Tasmania (2003).  2003 Sustainable Forest Management Report.

Geno, L. (1996).  Keeping it Sweet, The Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

Hajkowicz, S., and Young, M. (2002).  Value of Returns to Land and Water and Costs of Degradation.  Final Report to the National Land and Water Resources Audit.  CSIRO Land and Water, February.

Hanna, D., Gooday, P., Galeano, D. & Newton, P. (2005) Seafood Outlook to 2009-10 in Australian Commodities Vol 12 (1), Canberra.

Heggeler, S. (2004).  "Prospects and Issues for the Australian Cotton Industry" In:  Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) Outlook Conference, March.

Hennessy, K., McInnes, K., Abbs, D., Jones, R., Bathols, J., Suppiah, R., Ricketts, J., Rafter, T., Collins, D. and Jones, D. (2004).  Climate Change in New South Wales, Consultancy Report for the NSW Greenhouse Office, CSIRO and Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology, November.

Higgins, T.J., and Constable, G. (2004).  "Development, Regulation and Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Australia", Farm Policy Journal 1(2):  14-22.

International Grains Council (2005).  World Grain Statistics.  London.

Johnston, A., Walker, D., Wood, A. (1997).  "Spatial Analysis of the Impact of Land Use on Nutrient Loads in the Herbert River Catchment."  SRDC Final Report -- Project CSC13S, Brisbane.

Kemp, D. (2003).  "Murray Cod -- Matter of National Environmental Significance", Media Release 1st July, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Larcombe, P. and Woolfe, K.J. (1999).  "Increased sediment supply to the Great Barrier Reef will not increase sediment accumulation at most coral reefs", Coral Reefs 18:  163-169.

Larcombe, P. (2001).  "Holocene Great Barrier Reef:  sedimentary control and implications for environmental management".  Geological Society of Australia Special Publication 21:  281-294.

LMC International (2004).  Sweetener Analysis, Newsletter April 2004, Oxford.

Lomborg, B. (2001).  The Skeptical Environmentalist:  Measuring the Real State of the World.  Cambridge University Press.

Lough, J.M., and Barnes, D.J. (2000).  "Environmental control on growth of the massive coral Porites."  Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 245:  225-243.

Marohasy, J. (2003).  "Deceit in the Name of Conservation".  Review 55(1):  7-8.  (Viewed 14th March 2005)

Neldner V.J., Fensham, R.J., Clrkson, J.R. and Stanton, J.P. (1997).  "The natural grasslands of Cape York Peninsula, Australia.  Description, distribution and conservation status".  Biological Conservation 81:  121-136.

O'Donnell, V. (2005).  "Agricultural Outlook to 2009-10".  In Australian commodities Vol 12 (1) Canberra.

Reid, DD. J.H. Harris, D.J. Chapman (1997).  NSW Inland Commercial Fishery Data Analysis, FRDC Project No. 94/027, December.  Fish Research and Development Corporation.

Resource Planning Development Commission (2002a), Report on The Implementation of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement.

Resource Planning Development Commission (2002b).  Sustainability Indicators for Tasmanian Forests 1997 to 2001.

Seales, T., Gordon, S., Hafi, A., Toyne, C. (1999).  Sugar:  International Policies Affecting Market Expansion, ABARE Research Report No. 99.14, Canberra.

Smith, D.F. (2000).  Natural Gain in the Grazing Lands of Southern Australia.  Sydney:  UNSW Press.

Southgate, D., D. Graham, and L. Tweeten.  (forthcoming).  Chapter 10, "Affluent Nations", in The World Food Economy.  Oxford:  Basil Blackwell.

Stark, W. (2003).  Notes on GBR Rezoning, July.  (Viewed 14th March 2005)

Walcott, J.J., Zuo, H., and Rath, H. (2004).  Recent changes in Agricultural Land Use in Australia.  The Regional Institute Ltd.  (Viewed 14th March 2005)

Watson, I. (1991).  Fighting over the Forests, St. Leonards, NSW:  Allen & Unwin.

Wood, R.J. (2003).  Myth and the Murray:  Measuring the Real State of the River Environment.  Backgrounder 15/5.  (viewed 14th March 2005)

Wood, R.J. (2002).  WWF Says "Jump!", Governments Ask "How High?" .