Posts

Empty Towns, Full Bird Nests: Labor’s Priority

,

Another round of questioning regarding the Labor government’s pursuit of environmental water. And frankly, the answers I’m getting from the Department and Minister Watt leave me deeply concerned for our rural communities.

Here is where we stand:

I asked the officials exactly how much water they’re still looking to strip from the system. It turns out they are only about halfway to their 450-gigalitre target. By their own admission, there are still 229 gigalitres left to be recovered. That is a massive amount of water that will no longer be growing food or fibre.

I asked Minister Watt why he’s ignoring his own Labor counterparts in the New South Wales Legislative Council, who voted unanimously for a Royal Commission into water. The Minister dismissed the idea as an “expensive repeat,” preferring to stick to their own reviews. It’s clear they don’t want a truly independent set of eyes looking at the damage being done.

This is the part that should really worry every Australian.

The government is paying an average of $5,040 per megalitre for buybacks. Meanwhile, temporary water trading prices have jumped 250% over the last decade. They are forcing water prices to “ludicrous levels.”

They claim they want “value for the taxpayer.” The Reality? They’re outbidding farmers, forcing them off the land.

When I asked how much more taxpayer money is needed to finish these buybacks, they refused to give me a number, claiming it’s “commercial-in-confidence.” Simply, they don’t want sellers to know!

All Pain, No Clear Gain!

I asked them directly what exactly this 229 gigalitres will achieve that justifies gutting our farming sector. The answers were the usual bureaucratic fluff about “supporting variations in flows” and “waterbird breeding.”

They are prioritising bird breeding over the survival of the towns that feed this country.

The government admits their “Sustainable Communities Program” is in such early stages that they can’t even tell if it’s working, yet they are charging ahead with buybacks that will be finished by December 2026.

We cannot allow “environmental outcomes” to become a suicide pact for regional Australia.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How much is the remaining water for the environment in gigalitres? What’s outstanding? How much more will we claim back?  

Senator Watt: There are a couple of different categories, so maybe one of the officials can give you the updated figures.  

Mr Southwell: Are you referring to the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, Senator? 

Senator ROBERTS: I thought it was 292. That’s the remaining water for the environment, as I understand it. Am I wrong?  

Mr Southwell: Do you mean the sustainable diversion limit, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: I mean the total buybacks yet to be bought.  

Mr Southwell: Okay. Perhaps I can start by answering the question around the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, as I think that might go to part of your question. We’re around halfway towards that target. As of 31 December, we’ve recovered 221 gigalitres towards that. That’s a mixture of purchases and infrastructure as well as other mechanisms. I’m hoping that that goes to your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got about 229 left to go.  

Mr Southwell: Correct, Senator. We’re about halfway.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, the Legislative Council of New South Wales has voted unanimously to call on the federal government to convene a royal commission into water. Your own party, the Labor Party in New South Wales, voted for this measure. Do you support a federal royal commission, and, if not, on what basis do you disagree with your state counterparts? 

Senator Watt: I’m not sure that it was a unanimous vote of the legislative council. I am aware that there was a vote of the legislative council. It’s not my view that we need yet another royal commission into water policy or the Murray-Darling Basin. I recognise there are some Independents, particularly in the New South Wales parliament, who support that. This year, we have several reviews under way around the future management of the Murray Darling. You may have seen, just last week, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released a discussion paper about the next version of the plan. My view is that we should proceed with the work that is already intended, rather than launch an expensive repeat of a royal commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Third review of the Water for the Environment Special Account report has found that the money in the account used to buy back water will only last until December 2026. How much more money is needed to complete the 450 gigalitres of buybacks the Albanese Labor government is intent on undertaking?  

Mr Sullivan: In terms of the money required, traditionally we wouldn’t give you that figure because it’s a commercial tender process. The money is available inside the contingency reserve to complete the government’s commitment to 450 gigalitres. But, in terms of the water purchasing component of that, my understanding is that that is a figure that is not for publication—  

Senator ROBERTS: Because you don’t want sellers to find out.  

Mr Sullivan: Exactly. Mr Southwell: I’ll just add to that. We’re trying to maximise the value for taxpayers through this process.  

Senator ROBERTS: According to the report, at 1.1.1, recent purchases have averaged at $5,040 per megalitre. Water for actual farming is uneconomic above $100 to $200 a megalitre, depending on the crop. Is your buyback forcing up the trading price of water to ludicrous levels, forcing family businesses off the land?  

Mr Southwell: I’ll start and perhaps ask for some of my colleagues to come to the table. We’re very much well aware that water purchasing has an impact. As you’re aware, as part of the process for initiating a purchase program, there is a consideration of socioeconomic impacts. That process is a routine part of our decision-making when conducting these water purchase programs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Average water trading prices in the December quarter 2025 were over $500 per megalitre, which is 250 per cent higher than in the same quarter 10 years ago. Both quarters had similar rainfall below long-term averages, with some areas in drought. So they’ve got similar inflow in the period. If water prices have not been inflated by buybacks, what has inflated them?  

Ms MacRae: Water prices, particularly the temporary water prices that I think you’re referring to, are $200 to $500 per megalitre for the annual purchase of water as opposed to the permanent purchase of water, which is what we focus on in the department. Permanent access is more like buying a house as opposed to renting a house. Of course, it is more expensive to buy a house outright permanently than it is to perhaps buy that house, for example, for a 12-month period. That’s the price difference you mentioned. We’re paying on average $5,400 per megalitre, but temporary trades are in that $200 per megalitre range. I think over the last 10 years there have been many shifts in irrigated agriculture as well as water reform that have led to a change in pricing. This can be compounded by many things, including—  

Senator ROBERTS: You have affected the market though. 

Ms MacRae: There is an impact on prices in the market from the government purchasing water. There are many reports that do talk about that. But in many cases, while there is an initial impact, that does settle down initially after a period of time.  

Senator ROBERTS: To get to this point so far you’ve bought up water that farmers didn’t need, and/or you’ve bought up water that farmers did need but who needed your money more than they needed the water. You’ve brought up water that only appears in a flood, and now you’re down to buying water that’s needed to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. What price do you expect to pay for the remaining acquisitions?  

Mr Southwell: We run open and competitive tender processes. Those processes are underway. As I said earlier, we seek to obviously maximise the return for the taxpayer through this process, and we will evaluate those purchases based on the offers that are made and determine them based on value for money.  

Senator ROBERTS: The report at 1.1.2 also found current funding was insufficient to make up for the damage your buybacks are doing to rural and regional communities. What increase in allocation will you need to provide just compensation for the loss and damage you’re causing to rural communities?  

Ms Johnson: The government’s Sustainable Communities Program is providing $300 million over four years for community adjustment assistance. That was something that was referenced in the WESA third report. It found that the Sustainable Communities Program has the potential to offset some impacts in these communities that receive adjustment assistance. But because, of course, that program is still in the early phases of delivery, the third WESA report, which was tabled last year, found it was too early to assess the outcomes. But that’s certainly an important program when we think about community adjustment assistance in this space.  

Mr Coates: That’s actually in section 1.1.2 of the WESA report, where it refers to funding sufficiency. It’s talking about constraints measures, not the Sustainable Communities Program or programs to mitigate socioeconomic impacts.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?  

Mr Coates: Constraints is a whole different program under the Basin Plan. It’s not my area of expertise, but it’s about achieving environmental outcomes.  

Ms Johnson: Senator, on that one, the report found that the funding available to 31 December this year, 2026, is sufficient for the projects that are likely to be delivered in this period. Others can talk to constraints; there is quite a significant body of work that can be done. But, for the projects that are underway, you’ll see in that section 1.1.2 that it found that the funding available is sufficient for those projects expected to be delivered this calendar year.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, may I just inquire as to remaining questions and if there’s any possibility of putting some of those on notice. I’m not going to cut you off.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m nearly finished, I think. I think they’ll be short answers.  

CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what specifically will the remaining quantity of what will actually be 229 gigalitres for the environment be used for?  

Senator Watt: What will it be used for?  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the KPIs? What environmental need is so critical that farming needs to be so damaged by these buybacks?  

Mr Southwell: I’ll start and then hand over to my colleague Simon Banks. The water purchasing and water recovery for that 450-gigalitre target is to acquire water to support environmental outcomes to meet the Basin Plan. Dr Banks can talk through the detail of what that water is used for, but effectively it will deliver outcomes that support the—  

Dr Banks: Any water that is recovered through the program entitles us to a greater share of water in any particular year that we can then use to return to the environment. We’re able to support variations in flows and support the movement of native fish and the building of condition of native fish. We’ve been able to support waterbird breeding, which again is about how we improve the overall basin outcomes for the environment. So I can assure you there will be plenty of opportunity to use the available water, and my job is to make sure that we get the best out of the water that we’re responsible for managing.

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s Communist Farm Plot

,

I briefly questioned the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) regarding the massive $1.5 billion class action suit brought by Doyle’s Farm Produce and others.

I got the usual run-around — bureaucratic talk about “normal insurance processes” and passing the buck to the government’s insurer.

More alarmingly, I questioned Minister Watt about the $3 million being funnelled toward a scheme where intermediaries (likely union super funds) would buy up farms and water. I asked how corporate-owned “government farms” can magically create environmental water, reminding him that state run farming is a page straight out of the Mao and Stalin playbook.

When I asked how we are going to feed our growing population once the family farm is destroyed and the bush is emptied, the Minister fell back on “environmental management” platitudes.

This government is trading real food security for a radical agenda, and the farmers know it.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Referencing the New South Wales Supreme Court case of Doyle’s Farm Produce Pty Ltd atf Claredale Family Trust and others versus the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and Anor, a class action—this is claiming up to $1.5 billion in damages. Have you made a contingent liability for any sum at all in connection with this case or any other such claim? 

Mr McConville: The court action has been completing, and we are awaiting the judgement on that. We work with the AGS through normal insurance processes, so there’s not much more I can say on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t made a contingency; you’re just relying on insurance?  

Mr McConville: It’s the task of the government’s insurer to make those contingencies.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, this report discusses the $3 million allocated by the Labor government to the states for the development of a proposal to buy farms with water allocations through intermediaries, which would, I am sure, include union superannuation funds. Those corporations would then operate the farms. Minister, where did the $3 million come from, and how does purchasing a water allocation from a government farm make it environmental water?  

Senator Watt: Unless one of the officials knows the answer, I will have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Anyone? This is my last question. Didn’t Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin already try that, Minister? I’m just curious—once you have destroyed family farms through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and emptied out the bush, what will Australians in your cities, and your millions of new arrivals, eat?  

Senator Watt: The government’s view is that the long-term health of the Murray-Darling Basin system and the future of the agriculture industry in that region rely on better environmental management of water in the basin. We think this is essential to future food security.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure many, many farmers don’t agree with you on that one. 

/0 Comments/by

Virtue Signalling vs. Australian Jobs

,

These bills are a complete betrayal of Queensland, Australia and our democratic process. The establishment parties are so terrified of One Nation, the only real opposition, that they’ve resorted to “shuffling” the speakers list to bury our voices.

This is nothing more than another dirty, backroom deal between Labor and the Greens, who are prioritising TikTok-ready virtue signalling over the needs of everyday Australians.

Shockingly, this environment bill doesn’t even define what “the environment” is.

This government wants to build homes while simultaneously destroying the timber and coal industries. How do they expect to build without wood or steel?

Following the National Farmers’ Federation’s lead, I want to know why this bill introduces “closer controls” on land clearing that will actually increase bushfire risk, hike up food prices, and destroy rural communities.

One Nation says no. We will repeal this nonsense and replace it with honest stewardship based on data and outcomes, not feelings.

– Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Minister, these bills are a betrayal of Queensland, a betrayal of Australia and a betrayal of democracy. As an aside, before I start my question, on the first list of speakers to this bill in the second reading debate, I was speaker No. 9. The other One Nation senators were further down the list. On the revised speakers list, I was third last, Senator Bell was second last and Senator Whitten was last. No chance at all of getting to speak! One Nation is the party the other parties fear. We are the real opposition. 

Minister, another day another dodgy deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, which, as usual, sells out everyday Australians to advance the government’s overarching agenda of virtue signalling and TikTok video production. From the moment the deal was done, this government has chosen to make a mockery of parliamentary process. What matters to the Labor Party is not the outcome. No, it’s the so-called win. Yet all Australians lose. The Greens are the spiritual bedfellows of the ALP in this regard. No sooner is the ink dry on this dirty, backroom deal than they immediately move the goalposts. The Greens now want one set of rules for Australia’s natural environment and a whole new set for Australian Aboriginal environment. I thought all our land was unceded and belonged to Aboriginals. Surely, the Greens motion doesn’t in fact acknowledge that Australia belongs to Australians, regardless of skin colour. Who knows! One could go mad thinking too much about Greens motions. Certainly, they don’t do much thinking about them. 

It will be left to a One Nation government to clean up the mess this bill will create, and we shall clean it up. One Nation will repeal this bill and replace it with protections to our natural environment based on sensible, honest stewardship—on outcomes and on data, not on feelings. Our second reading amendment set out some of our objections to the bill. Given time constraints, I’m not going to repeat these now, Minister. 

Liberal senator Duniam has an amendment coming up which has a fair crack at fixing one of the major errors of this bill. This is an environment bill that does not define what the environment is! Senator Duniam’s amendment sets out what areas, which most Australians would agree, are the actual environment—World Heritage areas, listed wetlands, the Great Barrier Reef and so on. One Nation will support that amendment. 

One area of our environment which the government and the Greens misunderstand completely is forestry logging. The whole point about logging is that it provides timber for use in Australian home construction—the same homes the Labor-Greens government are promising to build, apparently without timber! Oh, and, yes, apparently they’ll do that without steel frames either, because they want to stop coal. 

The National Farmers’ Federation has provided a question to the minister, which is as follows because they’ve said it very well: 

As stewards of more than half of Australia’s environment, farmers understand the importance of doing the right thing by the land— 

it is in their own interests— 

They’ve also historically borne the brunt of complex federal environmental laws, often at odds with state obligations. That’s why the NFF has supported genuine reform, but not this deal. Our key concern is the announcement of ‘closer controls’ of ‘high risk land clearing’. The specifics of this remain unclear— 

what a surprise!— 

and we are urgently calling for clarity.  The introduction of reduced regrowth thresholds to the long-established ‘continuing use’ provision will promote poor environmental outcomes and increase bushfire risk— 

which, as an aside, will increase fire damage, hurting the natural environment and the human environment. The NFF quote goes on: 

It will interfere with routine vegetation management of regrowth to prevent bushfires, keep land productive, and manage weeds. The misunderstanding of agricultural practices is bitterly disappointing. 

That’s the end of the quote. Minister, why does this bill include measures which will ‘increase bushfire risk’ and place lives in danger; reduce the health of our forests; reduce food production—and, from that, increase food prices for all Australians—destroy the timber industry; destroy the communities that rely on timber; and damage the home construction industry, which will be left to bid in the international market for timber which is already in short supply and is from countries with lax environmental protections?

/0 Comments/by

Betraying the Food Bowl

,

The government’s modelling suggests we need 107 million tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2050. By my math, that would mean around 5 million hectares of productive farmland will be swallowed up by trees and woody weeds. When I asked them exactly how many hectares would be lost, the department admitted they don’t have a figure. They are implementing a plan that will devastate our agriculture sector.

Despite the UN Paris Agreement (Article 2(1)(b)) explicitly stating that climate action should not threaten food production, this department hasn’t even sought legal advice on whether their plan breaches that requirement. They are relying on Treasury “scenarios” that claim food production will magically increase by 32%, even while they lock up the land used to grow it.

I asked if they had assessed the combined impact of reforestation and carbon plantings, renewable energy projects (solar/wind) and massive clear felled transmission corridors. The answer was a flat no. They are ignoring the “slow-motion train wreck” of transmission lines and renewables destroying our food bowls because they say it’s “another department’s problem.”

While officials talk about “diversification of enterprise mix” and “market clearing,” I know the truth on the ground. Locking up land leads to explosions in noxious weeds and feral animals, increased management costs for neighbouring properties and the destruction of regional communities and jobs.

My Conclusion: This reckless “plan” is nothing but bureaucratic speak and strategy without a shred of solid data to back it up. They are gambling with Australia’s food security to satisfy an insane, unachievable net-zero agenda.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The net zero Agriculture and Land Sector Plan commits to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050. Based on sequestration rates of one to 21 tonnes per hectare, that means at least five million hectares of farmland could be converted to trees and woody weeds. How can you justify this when it risks reducing food production and creating food insecurity for Australians?

Mr Lowe: The Ag and Land Sector Plan doesn’t commit to 107 million tonnes of sequestration. The way I’d characterise that is that that was part of the Treasury modelling which described a particular pathway to achieving net zero, which factored in an amount of sequestration that would be needed in the particular scenario. What the Ag and Land Sector Plan does is identify a range of different options for landholders and farmers to reduce emissions and commit to a number of particular actions in which to achieve that. The first of those is understanding on-farm emissions as a foundational action. The second is around research and innovation, technology being an important factor in supporting farmers to reduce emissions, as it has been. Research and development have been foundational actions to support farmers throughout the course of agriculture in Australia. The third is on-ground action. We know that supporting farmers with the capability and skills that they need to manage their enterprise and reduce emissions is really important. The fourth is around maximising the potential of the land sector.

In relation to that, from our perspective, we think there are significant opportunities for producers to take up diversification of their enterprise mix in relation to land sequestration opportunities. Earlier in this committee, we were talking about soil carbon projects, and soil carbon projects are being explored by a number of participants in the livestock sector. Revegetation, where they’re garnering ACCUs as well. I might leave it there, but we can go into further detail if you’d like.

Senator ROBERTS: So the net zero agriculture and land sector plan does not commit to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050.

Mr Lowe: No, it doesn’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any sequestration?

Mr Lowe: It acknowledges that sequestration will be an important factor in achieving net zero, and it acknowledges that sequestration is also an important opportunity for producers in terms of diversification of their enterprise mix and diversification of income sources.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land under this plan is currently producing food?

Mr Lowe: It’s in the order of 50 to 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass where agricultural production of some form is undertaken. I’ll defer to colleagues as to whether I got that number right.

Dr Greenville: Yes, 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass is currently undertaking agricultural activities.

Senator ROBERTS: What will be the impact of the plan on food production?

Dr Greenville: I think the Treasury projection and the ag and land plan modelling that they conducted—and it’s just a scenario—has agricultural production continuing to increase out to 2050.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land is affected, though?

Dr Greenville: They did not provide estimates of the land base—

Senator ROBERTS: Does that bother either of you?

Dr Greenville: Sorry, Senator, maybe as you saw, we’ve mentioned and had a discussion with keen interest with Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie around this topic. We at ABARES are undertaking some work to explore the implications for the land use.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on the question before you, you’re undertaking that work?

Dr Greenville: Yes. We let the committee know, and there were some interesting questions on notice when we provided some detail around that. I’m happy to talk.

Mr Lowe: To clarify, that work has been ongoing. It was acknowledged in the Treasury modelling that I referred to earlier that ABARES has been undertaking that work.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you just accept Treasury modelling?

Mr Lowe: We provide inputs into Treasury modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t published modelling yourself on the impact on food output. You’re relying on Treasury saying it will increase.

Mr Lowe: As my colleague, Dr Greenville, said, we’re undertaking work in relation to that.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on questions that were put to you today.

Mr Lowe: No, based on work that was already ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Even article 2(1)(b) of the UN Paris Agreement requires climate action to avoid threatening food production. Is there any land being locked up under your plan?

Mr Lowe: The ag and land sector plan also acknowledges—and a key tenet of it is—that achieving emissions reduction shouldn’t come at the cost of food security. We would say that the ag and land sector plan is consistent with that acknowledgement that you read out.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice that your plan doesn’t breach the Paris Agreement?

Mr Lowe: The Net Zero Plan and the six sector plans are government plans to be consistent with the Paris Agreement.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice?

Mr Lowe: We have not, as a department.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know it’s consistent?

Mr Lowe: I think that question may be best directed to DCCEEW, but I’m not aware of legal advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Aren’t you responsible for the plan?

Mr Lowe: We’re responsible for the ag and land sector plan, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And the impact on the ag sector?

Mr Lowe: Yes. We have not sought legal advice in relation to the ag and land sector plan, and its consistency with the Paris Agreement, to answer your specific question.

Senator ROBERTS: I read that you spent $2.2 million developing the plan, yet you cannot provide a figure, as I understand it, for hectares to be reforested.

Mr Lowe: We don’t have a figure currently; that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that acceptable?

Mr Lowe: It’s work in progress.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that a plan?

Mr Lowe: There are a number of elements of the plan, as I mentioned, for foundational actions. Maximising the sequestration potential of the land is one of those.

Senator ROBERTS: I get the carbon dioxide sequestration. I don’t believe in all this crap, because there’s no data to back it up. I believe carbon dioxide sequestration will increase food production, but not if it locks up land—because then you’ve got noxious weeds and feral animals proliferating and going onto neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of managing neighbouring properties. Are you aware of these things?

Mr Lowe: I’d say, consistent with my earlier comments, that there are significant opportunities in carbon sequestration for producers. I’m aware of a number of examples of producers who have put into place plantation forestry on their enterprise and added that to their enterprise mix—so they’ve increased the number of trees on their property. It’s supported an increase in carrying capacity of stocking rates and diversified their income stream by enabling them to undertake forest activities. There’s an example of a New England wool producer, Michael Taylor; he’s got native and pine forest on his enterprise. He’s got a sawmill on his enterprise as well, where he cuts down, saws and processes the timber on his enterprise to sell. One of the benefits he ascribes to that is having an income during leaner years; where he’s got lower stocking rates, he can sell the timber and continue to employ people on his farm.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to visit some properties in south-western Queensland that have been locked up, where neighbouring properties are being destroyed?

Mr Lowe: Always open to visiting farmers and properties.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you commit to publishing a hectare estimate before implementing any measures; yes or no?

Mr Lowe: We’re already implementing measures.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how much land will be locked up?

Mr Lowe: As I’ve said, that work is ongoing but we are already implementing measures in relation to the ag and land sector plan.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re implementing the plan before the plan is finalised?

Mr Lowe: The plan is finalised.

Senator ROBERTS: But the hectares aren’t.

Mr Lowe: That work is still ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO’s land use trade-offs model shows carbon plantings compete directly with agriculture for land. How will this impact Australia’s food bowls and rural jobs?

Mr Lowe: I’d say it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach as to how carbon sequestration plays out in the landscape. There will be lots of different ways that land managers and producers decide to take up carbon sequestration opportunities. So I probably wouldn’t characterise things in the way that you have. What I would say is that we think there are opportunities for producers. I also think that, certainly, the types of lands that might be more favourably disposed to carbon sequestration—and ABARES can talk about this in more detail if you like—are the types of lands that are less productive. We would envisage is that we would often see multiple-use land, so land where there’s revegetation happening but also still able to support primary production.

Senator ROBERTS: I know the answer to this question. Have you assessed the combined impact of reforestation, renewable energy projects and transmission corridors on farmland availability?

Mr Lowe: In terms of hectare impact, for example?

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of productive farmland.

Mr Lowe: The answer is no. The work that we have ongoing is particularly in relation to carbon sequestration in the landscape.

Senator ROBERTS: You are not going to consider the renewable energy projects taking up farmland for transmission lines. They’re massive, and the farmers are pretty damn upset about them. People in regional communities, not just farmers, are upset.

Mr Lowe: That is a matter that’s the purview of DCCEEW in terms of renewable energy and transmission. We are interested in understanding the land impact of that and have been working with DCCEEW to understand that better.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand you’re developing a national food security strategy.

Mr Lowe: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How can that strategy be credible if you don’t know how much farmland will be lost to carbon dioxide sequestration, solar and wind generation or transmission lines?

Mr Lowe: I think the development of the strategy will be taking in multiple perspectives in relation to Australia’s future food security. We received over 400 submissions when we put out a discussion paper recently on Australia’s future food security. I haven’t read those submissions in detail. I imagine some of them might have raised those sorts of issues, so it is something that will be a matter of consideration. Equally of consideration—in fact, something that I understand came through really strongly in the submissions—will be the climate impact on our primary production enterprises and the importance of resilient farming systems as well.

Senator ROBERTS: In your planning and strategising what comes first—data or strategy?

Mr Lowe: We’d like to think that there’s a combination of both, where we can.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought data was the first step to understanding what you’re going to strategise about.

Mr Lowe: Another input is consultation, and we take that really seriously. In the development of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, we focused very heavily on consulting and consulting with our state and territory counterparts. We had an issues paper out on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan. We received a large number of submissions in relation to that. We held a sustainability summit that was auspiced by Minister Bowen and Minister Watt on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, and we held a number of roundtables as well with industry stakeholders on the plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you integrate land-use change modelling into the food security strategy and publish the findings?

Mr Lowe: We have land-use change modelling on foot. We will publish the findings, and we’re very happy to use it as an input into the food security strategy as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Has DAFF modelled the impact of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan on agricultural gross domestic product?

Mr Lowe: I’m just trying to think about that.

Dr Greenville: That was part of the modelling that Treasury undertook, and it’s an area where you have quoted that 107 million tonnes from. They have projections as part of that, like the 107 million tonnes, about agricultural production as well as agricultural emissions intensities and so forth. There’s detail in that.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked the assumptions on which it’s based or the actual figures?

Dr Greenville: We provided some information to give them the baseline on which they looked at the plan, and they’re quite detailed with what they’ve done in terms of the plan, the assumptions they’ve made and the like, and that’s all been published as part of that result.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you scrutinised it?

Dr Greenville: Obviously, we’ve taken a look. We take a keen interest, which is why—

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Taking a look’ is a bit different from scrutinising.

Dr Greenville: Which is why we’re undertaking our own modelling with the land sector. They pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in land base sequestration potential and the trade-offs between sequestration and agricultural value. We’ve invested in improving information around regional impacts and trade-offs.

Senator ROBERTS: Treasury assumes agricultural production will rise by about 32 per cent by 2050, but we don’t know how much land is going to be sequestered. How much land is going to be destroyed? How is it possible to get food production increased by 32 per cent if we don’t know the land that will be cut off?

Dr Greenville: Under a market-based approach, sequestration will occur where opportunity costs to agriculture are low. That is not inconsistent with agricultural production continuing to grow while carbon sequestration is added as another land-use activity.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve raised markets, so that raises carbon dioxide price. What carbon dioxide price is assumed to drive reforestation at the scale required, and will farmers be forced to choose between growing food and earning carbon dioxide credits?

Dr Greenville: That would be an outcome of modelling we haven’t finalised yet, so I don’t want to speculate.

Senator ROBERTS: The plan references alternative proteins. Is DAFF actively promoting lab grown meat as a substitute for real meat?

Mr Lowe: Not actively.

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has been made of the economic and cultural impact of replacing traditional meat with lab grown alternatives?

Mr Lowe: We haven’t done detailed work on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this terrifies me. There doesn’t seem to be any data driving the plan. That’s just a statement.

CHAIR: I’ll take that as a statement. Do you have further questions?

Senator ROBERTS: No, thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Albanese Sides with Billionaires—Farmers Fight Back

,

Recently in Parliament, Prime Minister Albanese tried to ridicule me, saying “Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda”‘ before calling it ‘a conspiracy theory. It reminded me of Gandhi’s quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

After One Nation doubled our Senate representation, it seems the PM has moved from ignoring to ridiculing — and in doing so, he engaged in misinformation.

Let’s be clear: the WEF’s push to end single-family homeownership is real. Their “you’ll own nothing and be happy” slogan isn’t a conspiracy—it’s a stated goal. The Albanese government’s nature-positive plan borrows heavily from WEF’s SUB (sustainable urban policy), after meeting with the new WEF co-chair Larry Fink of BlackRock.

Everyday Australians—especially our hardworking farmers—are being ignored while billionaires get the PM’s attention. No wonder he was booed at the Bendigo bush summit and chased out of town by farmers on tractors.

Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It’s the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We’re going to need more tractors.

Transcript

There’s a quote from Gandhi which reads: ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.’ I was reminded of that quote last Thursday when Prime Minister Albanese said of me in the House of Representatives: ‘Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda’—cue the spooky music— before calling this ‘a conspiracy theory’. Now, I can understand, after One Nation doubled our senators in the last election, why the Prime Minister would feel the need to move from ignore to ridicule. In trying to engage in ridicule, the Prime Minister only managed to engage in misinformation.  

The truth is the World Economic Forum opinion leader, who originated their mission statement ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy’, is the same person who used the stage at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos to call for an end to single-family homeownership. Danish politician Ida Auken advanced his idea as part of the West’s sustainable urban policy, or SUB—as in subhuman. SUB is where the Albanese government took the name and many elements of its nature-positive plan, after meeting with the new World Economic Forum co-chair, BlackRock’s Larry Fink. Our Prime Minister should really be better informed on WEF’s evil agenda—or perhaps he is informed.  

One thing’s clear: the world’s predatory billionaires have no trouble getting time with our Prime Minister. The people who can’t are everyday Australians, including our hardworking farmers who put food on our table and who we need more than ever to feed the millions of new Labor arrivals—our farmers who contributed $72 billion in exports last year to feed and clothe the world. No wonder the Prime Minister was booed and heckled while on stage at last week’s Bendigo bush summit and then filmed being chased out of town in the company of farmers on tractors.  

Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It’s the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We’re going to need more tractors.  

/1 Comment/by

Bugs for Dinner? Not on My Watch!

,

Has the price of a steak taken your breath away recently? That’s because the government wants you eating bugs or lab grown cells, not organic red meat.

In 2022, I confronted Meat and Livestock Australia directly. They were signed up to the crazy plan of ‘net zero’ by 2030.

The only way they ever could have achieved this is by killing off cows, reducing the total number across the country. That means good farm-grown meat would be too expensive for the peasants, but the elites jetting off to Davos every year would be able to afford it.

Three years later, Meat and Livestock have just admitted they are ditching their net-zero 2030 goals, exactly like I told them to do three years ago. Yet, they’re still committed to doing it by 2050.

End the nonsense. Ditch net-zero and make meat affordable for every Aussie house!

Meat and Livestock Australia drops 2030 carbon neutral target | The Australian

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:

We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.

I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?

Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.

Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?

Mr Strong : In part, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?

Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.

Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.

Mr Strong : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.

Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?

Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.

Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?

Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.

Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?

Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—

Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.

Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.

Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?

Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.

Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.

Mr Strong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?

Mr Strong : We can provide you with some.

/5 Comments/by

The Impact of Net-Zero on the Environment and Farmland

Renewables are incredibly destructive to our environment and good, productive farmland.

This is a great documentary from Advance Australia covering how people pushing net-zero like the Greens party are doing huge harm to our environment and ability to feed ourselves.

/3 Comments/by

One Nation Opposes the Use of Bovaer to Reduce Methane Emissions

BOVAER is a chemical additive that has been approved in Australia for feeding ruminants, including cows.

Bovaer is a trade name. The active substance is 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), which is diluted in propylene glycol and adsorbed on silicic acid. The chemical suppresses methane production by 99% in laboratory trials, but only 45% in field trials, and 28% when used for 12 months. This suggests that either the animals develop resistance to the chemical, or the chemical degrades in storage.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030224005009

3-NOP is not approved for use in organic beef or milk in Australia, so those wishing to avoid the chemical can purchase organic products.

Bovaer itself is harmful if it comes into contact with human skin, and the Product Safety Sheet requires the use of personal protective equipment.

The amount of Bovaer used in cow feeding is very small. If used as directed, the product does not affect the animal and does not appear in meat or milk fat. Additionally, the animal consumes 5% less feed for the same output.

However, food.gov.uk conducted testing at levels above the recommended dose and found that at (double) the dose, effects identified included decreased ovary size. At five times the dose, the chemical WAS found in milk fat. Further research at higher levels was prevented by the premature slaughter of the animal, which is a red flag to One Nation.

Long-term genotoxicity testing concluded there was evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats. However, the makers hired “experts” to contest the result. There has been no attempt to determine the happiness of the animals, i.e. does consuming this chemical cause them any discomfort?

The primary purpose of the product is to reduce methane emissions. However, ruminants have been part of the ecosystem since time began and bovine methane actually helps the environment.

There is no reason to add this chemical to stockfeed, regardless of its safety. This product is nothing more than a fundraiser for climate carpetbaggers to create a billion-dollar industry for themselves where none existed and none is needed.

For these reasons, One Nation opposes the use of Bovaer.

/6 Comments/by

Oakey Meat Works Pollution

,

The Oakey meat works is 100% owned by NH Foods of Japan. Between mid-March and mid-June 2022, NH Foods released 175 megalitres (175,000,000 litres) of heavily contaminated abattoir runoff into Oakey Creek, which flows into the Condamine Balonne river system, part of the Murray Darling Basin. From there, the contamination makes its way down the Darling and Murray Rivers into the Lower Lakes in South Australia.

The contamination was horrific: 460,000 MPN/100ml (milliliters) for E.coli, 151 mg/litre of ammonia nitrate, and phosphorus at 29 mg/litre.

The Queensland Government investigated and agreed with the facts but only fined the meat works $13,000 when they could have been fined $1.3 million per day. This might have something to do with the close links between the meat works and the union movement. I pointed out that charging a foreign meat works $13,000 to dispose of such a large amount of heavily polluted water under cover of heavy rain is a scandal. Why would Oakey meat works or any other company bother to dispose of waste properly when they can just dump it into the Murray Darling system and pay a token fine for doing so?

I first asked the Inspector-General of Water Compliance if he would investigate, and he refused. This is despite the Act, which established his agency, specifically outlines his duties to include intervening when a State Government fails to do their job, which Queensland has in this case. After that hand-washing, I asked the Murray Darling Basin Authority if they were concerned about such a large source of toxic pollution, which may have led to the famous blue-green algae outbreak and fish kill near Menindee. The answer was more deflection, with the matter ending at the Queensland Government’s door.

If this was a farmer, they would be all over it, and indeed are all over farm runoff. But abattoir runoff? Apparently not.

I am sick of the rules not applying equally. I hope raising this matter will at least focus the attention of relevant authorities on the Oakey meat works to ensure this never happens again.

Transcript | Session 1

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the questions that I started asking of the inspector-general; I was advised that they were more appropriate for the Murray-Darling Basin. The Oakey meatworks is 100 per cent owned by NH
Foods of Japan. Between mid-March and mid-June 2022, NH Foods released 175 megalitres of highly contaminated abattoir run-off into Oakey Creek, which flows into the Condamine-Balonne system. The water
released was 175 megalitres—massive. It was a large body of water, which was contaminated with ammonium nitrate at 102 milligrams per litre and E. coli at 14,000 MPN per 100 millilitres. I am sure you know that 100 MPN per 100 millilitres is considered a high-risk concentration. The source of the water was a holding pond, which was contaminated at the level of 460,000 MPN per 100 millilitres—an astronomical number for E. coli—151 milligrams per litre of ammonium nitrate and phosphorus at 29 milligrams per litre. The volume and the high concentration toxicity taken together are likely to cause a particularly large toxic blue-green algae outbreak, which was observed at the site prior to the release. The release occurred during heavy rain, which is why the concentration in the waterway was lower than in the dam. The timing of the release coincides with a blue-green algae outbreak in the Darling in July of 2023. My question is: are you aware of these facts already?

Mr McConville: Environmental regulation in Queensland is the responsibility of its Department of Environment, Science and Innovation. The MDBA doesn’t have any compliance or regulatory functions with
regard to the issues that you’ve raised. In respect of the issues regarding water quality in the Darling, yes, Dr Banks and I can talk in more detail to some of those issues, but not in relation to this.

Senator ROBERTS: So did the Queensland EPA investigate.

Mr McConville: I am not in a position to comment.

Senator ROBERTS: That wasn’t a question, Mr McConville. The Queensland EPA investigated, concluded that a breach of Queensland environmental laws had occurred and a fine was issued. The maximum fine for this offence is $1.3 million per offence. The Queensland government chose to fine the facility $13,500: one per cent of the maximum. Local residents tell me that the abattoir, which has a long history of industrial accidents and fines, has a habit of building up pollutants in their holding dam and then releasing it under cover of heavy rain. Has either the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or the department investigated the Oakey meat processing plant sending pollutants into the Murray-Darling Basin?

Mr McConville: Once again, I state that the MDBA doesn’t have any compliance, regulatory or investigative responsibilities. Those responsibilities would sit with regulatory agencies in Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: Am I to interpret, Mr McConville, that you’re saying, ‘Nothing to look at here’, or do you raise it and deal with it in another way? Did you know about it and what’s your response?

Mr McConville: No, Senator, I didn’t know about this specific instance. We continue to engage on an ongoing basis with Queensland, and indeed all other states, on issues of water quality. We have been very engaged with WaterNSW in relation to the issues of water quality in the Lower Darling in particular. But no, I have not been engaged on that issue in Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your level of engagement with the Queensland government and the Queensland EPA in particular?

Mr McConville: We don’t engage directly. There isn’t an EPA in Queensland; it’s the Department of Environment, Science & Innovation. We don’t engage directly with them. We do engage on a very continuous and
ongoing basis with the water agencies in Queensland as we look at all of the issues that relate to their responsibilities in implementing the basin plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Given your concern about the water quality of the Darling River, will you be engaging with the Queensland water authorities now on this specifically?

Mr McConville: I am happy to have a conversation with them. I would reinforce that we don’t have any compliance or regulatory functions in relation to environmental incident management in Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you raise this with them as a concern?

Mr McConville: I am happy to have a conversation with them, as I do on an ongoing basis.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you let us know when you do?

Mr McConville: Certainly, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, does $13,500 seem a fair fine for a foreign multinational food company? This is 175 megalitres of heavily contaminated water disposed of into the connected basin for just $13,500. That’s a very cheap way of getting rid of pollution. That’s a bargain! Why do anything legally when you can just dump dangerous levels of pollution into the basin? Any thoughts on that?

Senator McAllister: The officials have explained to you that the Murray-Darling Basin arrangements respect the role of the states and territories in managing certain functions in terms of environmental management, but require coordination on other questions. The official has said to you that this is a question for the Queensland government. The fines that they levy and the approach they take to compliance and enforcement really is a job for which they are responsible. We don’t seek to take on every responsibility that exists for a state and territory. We respect the role of states and territories in managing their own affairs.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pleasing to hear, in a way, because as you know I believe in competitive federalism and as much power to the states as possible and limited central power. But who is concerned? It doesn’t seem like anyone is concerned about the health of the Darling River?

Senator McAllister: Everybody is interested in the health of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Senator ROBERTS: Queensland is not.

Senator McAllister: Senator, I invite you to take that up with the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s interested in the health of the Darling River?

Senator McAllister: You can ask any number of the officials here, who spent a lot of time thinking about the health of the Darling, about the steps that are in place under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to improve the health of the river systems within the basin.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that what is done is done. The purpose of sharing this is to bring it to your attention and hopefully to procure an undertaking that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or the Department of
the Environment, Science and Innovation will monitor run-off from the Oakey meatworks in a heavy-rain event to prevent them from doing this again. Is that something that is reasonable?

Mr McConville: We don’t have a compliance or regulatory function, so it’s not our task to monitor run-off from any particular site or facility. That would sit with the Queensland state department. As I have said, I am very happy to engage with Queensland and to make inquiries in that regard; again, that function sits with the state environmental regulatory agencies.

Senator ROBERTS: Will your inquiries include any request or suggestion that they actively monitor water releases from this abattoir?

Mr McConville: Again, that is for the state authorities to determine how they would do that.

Senator ROBERTS: But would you hint to it or request it? They can tell you to ‘go to hell’.

Mr McConville: I need to be very mindful of where my remit exists and where it doesn’t. I am very happy to engage with departmental officials in Queensland in relation to water quality generally. The specific response, again, would sit with the state departments.

Senator ROBERTS: There are two points that I would like to raise. The second is the most important. The first one I just mention for completeness. The Queensland branch of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees
Union has made multiple donations to the Queensland ALP, totalling $66,000 across the period the abattoir has been a really bad corporate citizen. Maybe it’s something to do with the uncertain future of that meatworks and a factor in imposing such a small fine. The second point is directly to a federal responsibility. The uncertainty of that meatworks has been increased dramatically by the PFAS contamination in the groundwater off the Oakey air base. What is the government doing to manage and treat that PFAS contamination and prevent it growing?

Senator McAllister: There are a couple of things. First, as you have had explained to you on a number of occasions, we are not responsible for the Queensland government. We can’t in this forum answer questions about the way in which the Queensland government executes its responsibilities. Clearly, this is the Australian Senate. Senators are here for the purpose of interrogating the expenditure of public money in this portfolio. We are simply not in a position to answer questions about the Queensland administrative arrangements. Secondly, you asked me about the adequacy of penalties. I will say that a bill is in the Senate now to increase penalties from around $15 million in the Commonwealth’s environmental legislation to $780 million. That is legislation that you may vote for. I understand it is not your intention to do so, but we are trying to increase penalties in relation to offences that are relevant for the Australian government. Thirdly, in relation to PFAS, I can tell you generally that Australian government agencies, particularly in Defence, are very engaged with this where there is a relationship with the use of PFAS in defence sites. The officials at this table aren’t involved in those processes, but they may be able to assist you about any particular Murray-Darling Basin related matters. You may have needed to ask that in another committee.

CHAIR: We will now break for morning tea.

Transcript | Session 2

Senator ROBERTS: I will cover a number of issues. In the last 12 months, how many overseas trips have been taken by Murray-Darling Basin Authority members?

Mr McConville: In the last 12 months—I may have to double-check—two trips, one by me. I travelled to France for the International Network of Basin Organisations triennial general assembly. Tim Goodes, Executive
Director, Basin Plan, recently travelled to the United States to attend the Colorado River Basin and a series of other meetings and attended a course at Harvard University. I believe they are the only two.

Senator ROBERTS: Colorado River Basin would be pretty significant.

Mr McConville: Indeed.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide details, including cost.

Mr McConville: I will have to take that on notice. I am happy to.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. My staff would like to compliment your new system view page—very well done.

Mr McConville: Thank you.

Senator ROBERTS: They think it is excellent. When will you be likely to add a page on the measurement of to-sea flow from the barrages?

Mr McConville: I don’t know. Again, I am happy to take that on notice, if I may.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. South Australia’s water data export for water over the barrages, which is, I believe, the sea flow, totalled around 2,200 gigalitres to the sea in the last 12 months. Does that seem about right?

Mr McConville: Again, I couldn’t speculate. I am happy to come back to you on data flows and information.

Senator ROBERTS: This is your data, apparently. It is laid out for many pages and totals 2,201 gigalitres, which is a lot of water.

Mr McConville: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: From your new and excellent system view page, the value of the flow to South Australia over the last 12 months is 3,707 gigalitres. That’s from your data total there. Is that correct?

Mr McConville: I wouldn’t know, off the top of my head. I am happy to confirm that.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the figure for South Australian flow to guarantee the health of the Murray River through South Australia, and how much must the to-sea flow be to carry out the salt and pollutants to keep the river healthy?

Mr McConville: I might ask Jacqui Hickey, our director of river operations, to come up and address those questions in relation to the flows and the barrages.

Ms Hickey: Can you repeat your question for me.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the figure for the South Australian flow to guarantee the health of the Murray River through South Australia? How much must the to-sea flow be to carry out the salt and pollutants to keep the river healthy? We are after flow into South Australia and flow into the sea.

Ms Hickey: Chapter 8 of the Basin Plan sets out what we think the flow should be over the barrages, if we can achieve that. On a three-year rolling average, for 95 per cent of the time, that number is about 2,000 gigalitres over the barrages, with a minimum—

Senator ROBERTS: It is 2,200 gigalitres.

Ms Hickey: Per year, on a three-year rolling average, for 95 per cent of the time over the long term. That is set out in the Basin Plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?

Ms Hickey: That is in chapter 8, section 8.13. Regarding your questions on flows recently to South Australia, in the 2023-24 water year, the total flow across the SA border was 7,780 gigalitres. Of that, 5,470 gigalitres went across the barrages.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s over what period?

Ms Hickey: The 2023-24 water year.

Senator ROBERTS: One year of floods.

Ms Hickey: Coming off some wet periods.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that, during the last drought, in the debate about the water flows around 2019, the figure as to how much is needed to go out to sea to discharge pollutants and salt was about 800 to 1,000 gigalitres. Is that roughly correct?

Ms Hickey: I’d have to take that one on notice. I don’t have with me the long-term figures for barrage releases.

Senator ROBERTS: The target for over-the-border flows is about 4,000 gigalitres. That’s the top end. Is that about right?

Ms Hickey: It varies from year to year. The flow to South Australia, as you know, is made up of the SA entitlement flow, which is the consumptive entitlement and the dilution and loss. That’s what we have to provide
each—

Senator ROBERTS: That is domestic and irrigators?

Ms Hickey: It is. It is South Australia’s state entitlement. That includes some water for local environmental uses. We also provide environmental water that has been delivered through the system. When additional dilution flows are triggered, that is also provided, if that is not already met through unregulated flows. Any trade to or from South Australia provides a net adjustment of the total flow across the SA border.

Senator ROBERTS: The message I get from you is that it’s not simple. It’s complex. There are other factors. I am trying to simplify it. I don’t want to mislead anyone; I don’t want to put words in your mouth. My
understanding is that the annual inflow to the Murray-Darling Basin is about 12,000 gigalitres and South Australia gets about a third of that, which is about 4,000 gigalitres.

Ms Hickey: I can’t answer those numbers. I don’t have the analysis in front of me.

Senator ROBERTS: South Australia is only one-quarter of the basin. It seems to me that South Australia is getting plenty of water.

CHAIR: Said the Queenslander!

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that, during the last drought, as I said, around 2019, the debate was about a need in South Australia to discharge to the sea 800 to 1,000 gigalitres. We’re sending down 2,201
gigalitres to the sea. Why are we wasting water—and now the government wants another 450 gigalitres—when you have more than enough, Minister?

Senator McAllister: I think your question misunderstands quite a lot about the way the water arrangements work in the basin. The goal of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is to generate a healthy working river and to
support farming activities, communities and the natural environment within the basin area. Your approach looks at a single metric: the amount of water flowing over the barrages. It makes an assumption that water flowing at the end of the system represents a waste. That’s not the way that the scientists tell us we should manage water in the system. We’ve got broader goals. We want to see healthy rivers right across the basin, including in the north of the basin. We want to make sure that the systems aren’t overallocated, so that irrigators and water users have certainty about what they can use each year. We also want to make sure that we’re not extracting more water out of those systems than can be sustained in the long term from an environmental perspective. The truth is that communities and agriculturalists and environmentalists all need us to return to some kind of sustainable take out of that system.

Senator ROBERTS: Just looking at the figures that I shared with Mr McConville, from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s own data, the flow into South Australia in the last 12 months was 3,777 gigalitres. The flow out from South Australia into the sea was 2,200 gigalitres. That is about 1,600 gigalitres consumed in South Australia. Town water and irrigation are about 400. That leaves about 1,200 for river seepage and evaporation of the lower lakes. That seems like a lot.

Ms Hickey: Maybe we can issue you with some updated numbers. What happens is that, when we get the information from our flow recording sites across the basin, every now and again we do hydrometric updates and
we do find that there are some adjustments to those figures. You are talking about the 2023-24 water year?

Senator ROBERTS: I am talking about the last 12 months.

Ms Hickey: I have only got it per water year. There is the flow into South Australia, minus the amount that’s used for irrigation purposes, aligned with South Australia’s allocation. Then there are additional inflows that come into the lower part of the River Murray from other small tributary inflows as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that from the south-east?

Ms Hickey: No. That is from the Mount Lofty Ranges and other local catchment areas. Obviously, when the lakes are higher, there is more evaporation loss, but wind and temperature do play a big factor in evaporation
losses at the lakes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That is the end of my questions.

/4 Comments/by

Questions Raised with APVMA on mRNA Vaccine Approvals

,

During the recent estimates, I raised several questions regarding the approval and use of mRNA vaccines by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I inquired if the APVMA has authorised any mRNA vaccines. Mr Hansen confirmed that, as of now, no such vaccines have been approved. To ensure thoroughness, Dr Maria Trainer, joined the discussion. She reiterated that no permits or authorisations for mRNA vaccines have been issued, although she stated that there is a general permit for small-scale research (Permit 7250) that might cover such activities.

I questioned whether the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries had acted with APVMA’s consent in importing, testing, and manufacturing an mRNA vaccine for border disease. Dr Trainer clarified that while no specific permits were issued, research could legally occur under the general permit. For clarity, I asked for confirmation on whether the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute holds such a permit and was told that this would be provided to us on notice.

I also addressed concerns about the development of mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease by the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Dr Trainer confirmed that no applications for these vaccines have been received, with Mr Hansen adding that notifications about genetic material for vaccines would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and Biosecurity.

Lastly, I raised the issue of foot rot vaccines for sheep, noting that an overseas manufacturer has been approved while an Australian manufacturer has had its approval withdrawn. The overseas vaccine is more expensive and less effective.

I urged the government to commit to a process that ensures the availability of the more effective and affordable Australian-made vaccine for our sheep farmers. Senator Chisholm agreed to take this on notice, and Mr Hansen expressed openness to discussions with the Australian manufacturer for product registration.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to my first and most important set of questions. At previous estimates, I have asked if an mRNA vaccine has been approved by your agency, and the response was, ‘No it hasn’t.’ So let me first update, has the APVMA authorised for use any mRNA vaccines? 

Mr Hansen: I understand the answer is still no, but if we are going to go down a line of questions on registration of vaccines, do you want me to get an expert to the table? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you like. That’ll make it quick. 

Mr Hansen: Excellent. It will be Dr Maria Trainer, but, as far as I’m aware, the answer is still no to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The New South Wales department of primary industries has imported, tested and now manufactured an mRNA vaccine for border disease for New South Wales at the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Was that action taken with the consent of the APVMA? 

Dr Trainer: We have not issued any permits or authorised any messenger or any vaccines in Australia anywhere, but we do have a general permit for small-scale research, permit 7250, that potentially would allow for the research being conducted. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know if they are doing research, but they could legally be doing research under a permit? 

Dr Trainer: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice to provide whether or not the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has such a permit? 

Mr Hansen: Provided they met the criteria around the small scale, and that’s spelt out under the permit, then we wouldn’t be informed about it. But that’s something we can certainly make an inquiry about. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and could let us know on notice, please. The Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has also declared they are developing mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Have they applied for or advised you of their handling of this incredibly dangerous genetic material? 

Dr Trainer: At this point in time, we’ve received no applications to register or authorise any messenger RNA vaccines. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t heard from them? 

Mr Hansen: No, not on that, and I’m not sure that we would be the people that they would notify about bringing in the genetic material for the vaccine. That would be more likely DAF and biosecurity. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I was told when looking into this matter that once we have foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease material in Australia, we can risk our disease-free status. Is it a true statement that if the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute mishandles this material and one animal is infected with foot and mouth, Australia will lose our disease-free status and the $20 billion a year this brings in? 

Mr Hansen: That’s well and truly in the domain of DAF and biosecurity. 

Mr Lowe: That’s an outcome 2 question. 

Mr Fennessy: I can tell you that some of the work we may have done in the past is done offshore, so not in Australia. We might work with overseas labs. But it doesn’t come into Australia unless there is a biosecurity permit, and there haven’t been any permits allowed for that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who should we put a question on notice to in regard to that? 

Mr Fennessy: To the department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get on to something quickly. I’ll put most of it in a letter to the minister on a question on notice. There’s also foot rot for sheep. I’m advised that an overseas manufacturer has been given approval and the previous Australian manufacturer has not had its approval withdrawn. The overseas manufactured vaccine is more expensive for sheep farmers based on the need to more frequently apply it plus the cost. It is less effective, and the locally made, therefore, is more effective, cheaper and of higher value than the foreign made. We also have a declaration from a veterinarian that the local product is far more effective. Minister, is your government prepared to commit to a process—I’ve condensed a lot of things into this, and I will put it in detail in a question on notice—whereby it identifies or quantifies the need for this Australian manufactured vaccine and work on foot rot with the relevant parties to ensure the availability of this vaccine for Australian sheep farmers? 

Senator Chisholm: I’ll take that on notice. 

Mr Hansen: I can provide one more sentence to that, which is that the Australian-made vaccine had an emergency permit because there was no other registered product available in the market. The moment that there became a registered product that had actually come through the front door and had met all the safety criteria, the criteria for an emergency use permit no longer met. We would love the producer of that Australian-made product to come back through the front door for registration as a product, and we’re open to conversations with them on that when they are interested. 

Senator ROBERTS: So would veterinarians and so would farmers. They would love that Australian manufacturer to come back. I must say, Chair, Mr Hansen’s comments have been exactly as you said: precise, succinct and direct. I love your forthcoming and forthrightness. 

Senator Chisholm: You were the problem!  

CHAIR: You got the MR tick of approval, so you’re on a roll here. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. 

/by