Posts

Increased Land Values in Queensland – Labor’s Tax Grab

,

I spoke with Daisy Cousens last Friday on increased land values in #Queensland and how the government benefits. As well as Digital ID and the upcoming rallies around Australian capital cities.

Watch ‘The Daisy Cousens Show’ live and on demand Fridays 7pm AEST at ADH TV: https://adh.tv/videos/the-daisy-cousens-show

Transcript

Daisy Cousens: Well, it’s abundantly clear by now that despite trying to con Australians with a $15 a week tax break, Federal Labor is ideologically perfectly happy to rob citizens blind by taxing them out the wazoo. The beginning example of that was the reinstating of the 37.5% tax bracket, which ensures bracket creep will continue in perpetuity. However, in an even sneakier ploy, Labor is now taxing by stealth by increasing land values. Joining me this evening is One Nation Senator, the wonderful Malcolm Roberts. Senator, fabulous to have you here this evening. How are you?

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very well, thanks Daisy and thank you for the invitation. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Daisy Cousens: Well, it’s wonderful, wonderful to have you here. I’m very, very keen to get your take on this Senator. There has been a lot of upset up north about an increase in land value. And look, at first thought this might sound like a great thing for farmers, that their land is now worth more. But when you take tax into account, the tax hungry Labor government, this all you know, starts to make sense from their point of view, doesn’t it?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’d love to talk about the tax hungry Labor government, but we also must talk about the tax hungry Liberal opposition and former Liberal government. But we’ll come to that hopefully.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm.

Senator ROBERTS: Inflation, as you quite rightly pointed out, is a stealth tax.  It’s stealthy thing that people don’t see but it reduces disposable income and what we see is land values going up for, and I think an 11% increase in the number of properties that that will be subject to land tax because it’s a threshold of 600,000 and above, but also remember the land valuations are bases for rates and  councils right across the state are under pressure, some through mismanagement, some through mismanagement from the state government. But the systems are so complex and so confusing, and the accounting systems, that local councils will be increasing rates as well.  So, this will slug everyone – it’ll mean less disposable income.  So, people’s stand of living will be going backwards.

Daisy Cousens: Gosh, which is appalling in this cost-of-living crisis. I hate this sort of ideological bit that political parties have that it’s okay just to tax people into oblivion, because as you rightly mentioned, the Liberal Party. I’m always on about how, you know, Labor is so happy to tax citizens, but the same can actually be said quietly about the Liberal Party can’t it?

Senator ROBERTS: It can be. I moved a motion, an amendment, sorry, recently into one of the pieces of legislation that Labor had introduced to the Senate and that was simply to remove bracket creep. It was done properly. The Liberals even stood up and said they commend me for it, they like the way the bill was written, but they’re not going to support it because they love bracket creep and so does the Labor Party. They love bracket creep.  They love seeing people go unconsciously into higher tax bracket, not even doing being aware that that’s the case and that’s an immediate increase in tax and so people don’t realise that they’re being, that they’re having more money stolen from them.

And then Dave Sharma, the new Liberal Senator, when he gave his maiden speech, his first speech in the Senate recently, he said he’s all in favour of removing bracket creep, but just two weeks before he he voted against removing bracket creep.  So, there was nothing wrong with my bill, they said it was well done but they couldn’t do it. So, both the Liberal and Labor Party.  And we’ve also got to remember that net-zero, putting in place net-zero foreign policy, increases energy prices which flow right through the economy. The energy sector is the most important sector in the economy in terms of the foundation for prices of goods and services because they flow right through and when you increase energy prices, you decrease productivity, you decrease wealth and that applies not only to individuals – it applies to businesses, it applies to communities. And the Liberal Party is the one who first said in government that they would support UN 2050 net-zero policy. So, the Liberal government is putting heavy impost on every person who uses electricity and every person who lives in this country.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm gosh! It’s so hypocritical of both the major parties because they both go on this bent, don’t they, pretending they’re for the little guy, or we’re for the workers, we’re for ordinary people, but how can they possibly say that with a straight face when they’re so happily happy to tax people?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, they’re used to the lies that they’re putting out. The climate scam is a lie. The climate fraud is a lie. The whole basis for these energy policies is a lie. And then we see – every major problem, Daisy, in this country comes out of Parliament House, Canberra, every major problem. Some of the problems come out of states, but they’re exacerbated by the federal government. So, we see inflation, was driven by the federal government and the Reserve Bank of Australia by printing far too much money during the COVID mismanagement.  The whole of that COVID mismanagement shut down supply routes, the supply side, so we had fewer goods, which meant that raised prices, and we had more money chasing those fewer goods, which further raise prices. So inflation, which is a hidden stealth tax as you rightly pointed out, is the cause of people going backward in disposable income. So inflation is the number one enemy and it was created by the Morrison government with the Labor Premiers in hand and by the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Daisy Cousens: Ohe absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: So what we need to so is actually open these people up to the truth.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm. Oh no, I agree with you and what people just I think conveniently shove under the rug or forget, certainly the Liberal Party does, was that it was the Liberal Party’s fault when they were in government a few years ago that we are in this inflationary position because they kept capitulating to the states’ demands for money for their ridiculous COVID policies. So, thank you for bringing that up and let’s never forget it. Now, Senator Roberts, according to this chart, the greater the rate of primary production, the higher the valuation increase. Is this justly proportional?

Senator ROBERTS: Daisy, let’s keep flogging everyone who’s successful. Let’s see how many successful people we have left in this country. That’s exactly what they’re doing. So, someone that works their land better, their business better, someone invests in their land, their business, and they have a higher productivity and what do we do? We slug them for it. That’s no way to reward talent. That’s no way to reward creativity and hard work and enterprise. That’s the opposite. It’ll cripple this country and it is crippling this country. That’s what we need to remember. This will do enormous damage to our primary producers and we call them primary producers for a bloody good reason. They’re the primary producers of the whole economy. Everything is based upon agriculture and mining, the two primary production sectors. Manufacturing is based on that. Goods and services in the services sector or the tertiary sector are all based upon it. So, we’re killing the primary sector and what it’s doing is it’s hollowing out the bush – they want us all to move from the bush and into the slums and cities – high density high rise living. Thomas Jefferson said it so well and Tim Ball, the expert climatologist from Canada, echoed those words. You can have farms without cities, Daisy, but you cannot have cities without farms. We are crippling this country.

Daisy Cousens: And that is such a good point. You know they are so important, our farmers, and they’re being treated so shoddily by the government and certainly, think of the cost-of-living crisis, as taxes increase for our farmers, won’t that in turn flow onto our grocery bills? Will they become even more expensive?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it will. And we’re seeing the prices increase already, quite dramatically, because of the recent increases in energy costs, which have been artificially driven by basically lies and also by inflation. And also, we must remember that we’re seeing the consequences of previous Liberal-National governments that stole farmers rights to use their land and to comply, that was the Liberal Party government’s way of complying with the United Nations Kyoto Protocol. They said they wouldn’t sign it, but that they will comply with it. The moment they did that they started putting in restrictions on land use. They got the state government involved, particularly in NSW and Queensland to put those land use restrictions in and now we see the Queensland government, two years ago, three years ago, bringing in legislation to cripple the farms right up and down the East Coast of Queensland which, as you know from our states layout, are fundamental agricultural areas.  They’re the richest agricultural areas – all in the name of the environment. And I asked questions in a Senate inquiry of the QLD experts -they don’t have any evidence for it. We must remember that the farmer, the owner of the land, is the most important custodian, the best custodian, because a farmer, if he ignores the environment around his land, his land deteriorates. The farmer is the best person for understanding the management of the environment.  The farmer is the one who’s going to miss out the most if he abuses that or she abuses that because they’re superannuation goes, they have got nothing to hand back to their kids. Whatever they want to do is gone. So the farmer is the best person to manage the land and the environment around his or her property. And what we’re doing is we’re putting it in charge of bureaucrats in Canberra, bureaucrats in Brisbane and bureaucrats in academia that are crippling our agricultural sector.

Daisy Cousens: Oh, absolutely. I mean, they’re just handing it over to people who have no idea what they’re doing. It’s outrageous! Now look, Senator, before we go, I have to talk to you about this Digital ID bill. You have been a real campaigner against the Digital ID bill. What is there left for Australians to do to stop this nightmare becoming imprinted as a reality?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, Daisy, I’m normally a very calm person and I don’t get upset too easily, but on Wednesday night, before Easter, after this bill went through without any debate, not one word of debate.  Amendments were moved and passed without one word of debate. And so that’s the first thing to recognise, the guillotine. So, I was shattered. But on Thursday I came into my office the next morning and found everyone in my office happy and I thought, what’s going on? And they said, Malcolm, the House of Reps was kept back late, the bill was introduced in the Senate and once it was passed in the Senate, it was supposed to go to the House of Reps, for passage through the House of Reps.  Well, it didn’t go to the House of Reps. And we believe that that’s the case because the public kicked up such a fuss, social media gutted Labor, social media gutted David Pocock the Teal, David Pocock the Teal senator and what we think is going on is that Labor is very, very worried about the consequences of passing this bill. And so, what we’re saying is 2 things. Every citizen get out there and hammer your local representative in parliament, in the House of Representatives. Not just the Labor Party but also the Liberal Party. Now the Liberals introduced this bloody bill into the parliament three years ago and I opposed it from the start. But the Liberals have voted with us against the bill two weeks ago in the Senate. So, we know the Liberals are sensitive in the lower house. We know that the Labor Party is sensitive in the lower house and the Teals and the Greens, so get out there and tell your lower house representative, your house representative member to vote against it.

Daisy Cousens: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: The second thing is we saw the public rise up and I must congratulate everyone for doing that. We heard it in Canberra. Now what we need to do is – One Nation put out a petition opposing the digital identity bill. It got 60,000 signatures in the space of two days. Phenomenal.

Daisy Cousens: Fantastic.

Senator ROBERTS: And what we’re doing now based on that strength, we’re running a national protest day on May the 5th, Sunday May the 5th and we’ll be having protests in each of the major capital cities in Australia. So, it’ll be a very important that the public gets out and shows its voice.

Daisy Cousens: Absolutely. Thank you so much for letting us all know about those protests. And Senator, thank you so much for coming on the show this evening. You do wonderful work and I do hope we can see you again soon.

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to it. Thank you very much and have a good weekend, Daisy.

/5 Comments/by

Media Release: 3G Shutdown Inquiry Debated by Senate

, ,

The Senate will debate and vote on establishing an inquiry into the shutdown of the 3G mobile network on Tuesday, 26 March 2024. 

The 3G network is an essential service for millions of Australians. 3 million 3G-reliant devices are estimated to be affected by the looming shutdown, including 200,000 medical alarms. 

Farmers across the country rely on 3G wherever there is no 4G coverage, as well as using equipment that doesn’t operate on 4G.

740,000 4G customers will be unable to dial Triple Zero in an emergency.

Media Release

Media ReleaseDownload

Notice of Motion 

Motion-to-establish-InquiryDownload
/by

Labor Dashes Hopes for Murray Darling Basin Community

,

The Albanese Labor Government are shifting the goalposts on the Murray Darling Basin Plan. There’s only 42GL left to complete the water acquisitions across the whole basin, so the pain is almost over and there’s still the 450GL of water for South Australia, which means this doesn’t need to be taken from irrigators. And there’s another 3 years to find that water through capital works.

In this Estimates session I asked whether these last few measures would be the end of the nightmare for Basin communities. I was expecting a yes – instead I got a no.

It seems the bureaucracy and the Albanese Government are hell bent on taking everything for themselves, forcing even more farmers off their land. Their answer certainly sounds like they intend to demand more water for the environment when the plan ends in a few years, starting the nightmare over again.

Landholders, including farmers, just want to know what the government is planning so they can adjust. Clearly the Government does not understand farming to know this, or simply don’t care.

The science underpinning the scheme is flawed, which is unsustainable, hurts farmers, fibre producers and the environment.

One Nation would complete the remainder of this plan and then call it done. No more water to be taken off the farmers. We would also sell the 78GL of water over-purchased by the department back to the farmers, to grow food and fibre to feed and to clothe the world.

Anything else is sabotaging the bush. #nofarmersnofood

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS:  With all the numbers flying around, I feel confused sometimes; things don’t seem to change. I would like some clarification. Talk of water buybacks created a lot of anger when the Albanese government came to power. That talk seems to have gone quiet. There was a plan to buy back 44.3 gigalitres immediately, a threat to use buybacks to get another figure to complete the plan—I will raise that in a minute. How much has been purchased so far? Your website is still saying that you need another 38 gigalitres, yet we heard the tender was oversubscribed.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the open tender, we were seeking 44.3 gigalitres for the Bridging the Gap component. I want to be specific here; that was for Bridging the Gap. It was oversubscribed. We had 250 tender responses, which accounted to 90.34 gigalitres in terms of across the catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So double?  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes, just over double. These Bridging the Gap requirements are catchment specific. There is a certain amount of water to be recovered in a certain catchment. It was oversubscribed in total, but specifically we are purchasing to an amount in a particular catchment. It also has to represent the right type of water, and value for money, before we proceed. From that 44.3 gigalitre tender we have agreed to purchase 26.25 gigalitres towards that target. We will, as a result of that, complete the requirements in three of those specific catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So you still have the fourth catchment to do?  

Ms O’Connell:  There are six catchments in total.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You still have three of the six to do.  

Ms O’Connell:  That’s right; to complete the recovery.  

Mr Southwell:  That is correct. There are three catchments that we expect to recover through this tender, subject to all contracts being finalised, and three to go. I might take this opportunity to give an overview of where we are in the process. The tender sought to recover 44.3 gigalitres. When all of those contracts are signed, we expect to have spent around $205 million. Contracts are still being signed. That is important to note in terms of where we are up to. A table on our website provides an outline of each catchment, the volumes we expect to have recovered and the volumes that remain.  

Senator Davey:  That table was only uploaded today.  

Mr Southwell:  It was uploaded yesterday, I think, Senator.  

Senator Davey:  Late yesterday.  

Mr Southwell:  I understood it was later than 9 am yesterday morning.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You will still buy the 90 gigalitres that came in as tenders?  

Mr Southwell:  No.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Just the 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  That tender process was specifically for Bridging the Gap, and the volumes that we are purchasing are for Bridging the Gap.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That is 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I note that the Restoring our Rivers Framework, currently under consultation, is for the full 450 gigalitres South Australian flow; your website says 424. Can I have this confirmed: this is the same bucket of water, whether it is 424 or 450—not two buckets?  

Ms O’Connell:  No, there are not two buckets. The requirement is 450 gigalitres, of which 26 gigalitres is contracted, delivered or underway. The remaining component is 424. So it is one lot of 450, with 26 already recovered.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Senator Hanson-Young, in an interview with the ABC last November, said there was a further 300 gigalitres of water to be found to complete the plan, not 38 gigalitres. This was not including the 450 gigalitres. Is that statement correct? If so, can you explain how that figure is arrived at?  

Ms O’Connell:  We would have to see what exactly she was referring to and get that quoted number.  

Chair:  Could you table it? Do you have it with you?  

Senator ROBERTS:  I don’t have it with me, no.  

Mr Fredericks:  We will take that on notice.  

Ms O’Connell:  For us to be able to answer that, would you be able to provide the document as well, so we can make sure we are referring to the right thing?  

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes. By our calculations, if you get the remaining 38 gigalitres on buybacks, you will also have 78 gigalitres of excess purchases in some bailees. Will you sell this back to the farmers?  

Ms O’Connell:  On Bridging the Gap, which is what we have been talking about, it is a catchment-specific amount that we need to recover. We don’t intend to buy more than what is needed. There is a minor amount of incidental overrecovery that happens when you buy water, but that is minor and incidental. Our intention is to bridge the gap through the 44.3 gigalitres.  

Ms Connell:  In relation to the 78 gigalitres of overrecovery you referred to, there are two issues to highlight. The number of overrecoveries won’t be confirmed until New South Wales water resource plans are accredited. A significant proportion of that figure relates to overrecoveries in New South Wales. The other thing to keep in mind is that water is currently held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and used at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, once you get that figure, the 38, and the 450, minus what is underway now, is it done? Is there anything else? Can what remains of farming in the Murray Darling Basin get on with growing food and fibre to feed and clothe the world, without this nightmare of the plan hanging over farmers? Is that the end of it?  

Senator McAllister:  I think the best way to describe the government’s intentions is to implement the plan in full. That was the purpose of the legislation that went through the parliament. As you have observed, there is substantial work to do. That work includes the recovery associated with Bridging the Gap, which the officials have been talking about. It also includes establishment of the framework for reaching the 450-gigalitre target. The government is presently consulting on that framework. That document is in the public domain and we are seeking public comment about that approach. There are other elements of the work associated with completing the plan; the officials can talk you through that. Rather than accepting your summary of the work before us, I would prefer to point to the way the government characterises the work that is underway.  

Senator ROBERTS:  What amounts are required to finish the plan? That is what I heard you say: when the plan is finished, that is it—no more buybacks.  

Ms Connell:  In the first instance, the plan doesn’t finish. It is an ongoing instrument, subject to a review by the Murray Darling Basin Authority in 2026. That will be the first review of the Basin Plan. Under the current Basin Plan, there are two key targets.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That means that the plan could change.  

Chair:  Senator ROBERTS, the river is a living thing. The reason why we ended up with the Murray Darling Basin Plan in the first place was over-extraction and the utilisation of the river.  

Senator Davey:  Happy to replace the chair to answer questions from the committee. Thank you, Chair.  

Chair:  Thank you, Senator Davey. Minister, maybe you could help us out here. It is a point of clarification that is worth making.  

Senator McAllister:  I am happy for officials to talk through the approach. The main point is that the government’s commitment is to implement the Basin Plan in full. Under the previous government, insufficient progress was made on some important initiatives. Progress basically stalled for an entire decade. We talked about this a lot during the committee stage of the Senate debate. You are aware of the government’s perspective on this. It is for that reason that we had to change the legislation. We are presently consulting on the key initiatives that are underway. The officials can talk you through all of the important next steps.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the Basin Plan, it is about sustainable river systems long-term management. There are two major components in the plan to be fulfilled that need to be delivered. We have been talking about Bridging the Gap. The remainder is the 450 gigalitres. There are new legislative time frames for delivering those that provide more time, more options, greater flexibility and greater accountability to be able to deliver on those targets. Beyond that, there is a review role for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of the long-term sustainability and sustainable management of our river systems. That review is not until 2026, which would foreshadow what might be required in the longer-term future.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Let me understand that, Ms O’Connell. The plan as it is—as we have just been told, it’s a living document and a living plan and it could change—the 450 and the 38, that’s it; but it could change in 2026 when the review is done. Because it is a living plan, the plan could grow another arm and leg.  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes.  

Mr Fredericks:  I don’t think we can pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  People’s livelihoods are at stake, Mr Fredericks.  

Mr Fredericks:  I understand that fully. There is a review. It is in 2026. It will be very well conducted by the MDBA. I don’t think that, sitting here in 2024, we, as departmental officials, can really pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I am thinking of farmers in southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who are wondering whether or not to invest in their future and the future of their communities. Businesses in many rural communities have gone downhill, in large part due to the Water Act and the plan. These people want to know that they’ve got something more than two years. They just want to know: is this the end?  

Senator McAllister:  Can I make this point, Senator Roberts? The origin of the plan lay in a recognition across the country that we had overallocated the Murray-Darling Basin system. That had very significant consequences for basin communities. It had very significant consequences for the food and fibre producers in the Murray-Darling Basin, who depend on reliable access to water. It had consequences, of course, for the natural systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, which were under enormous pressure. It’s a while back now, but it really came to a head in the millennium drought. We saw some very severe impacts across the basin at that time. There was a recognition across the country, including within the basin, that we couldn’t go on in this way and that the overallocation needed to be addressed. That is the origin of the plan.  

It matters to farmers and food and fibre producers that these issues are tackled and addressed because there is an interrelationship between the access to water by communities, the access to water by farmers, the availability of water for environmental purposes and, increasingly, the recognition that cultural water matters to First Nations people as well.  

All of these things are interrelated and, at their heart, the success of all of those stakeholders, and the interests of all of those stakeholders, lies in having a healthy, working river that is being appropriately managed. Those are the underlying ideas that drive our government’s commitment to implementing the Basin Plan.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, while we do argue about the science underpinning the Basin Plan, let’s set that aside. Modern civilisation cannot exist without a healthy environment. We get that. A healthy environment cannot be achieved without modern civilisation because it reduces the pressure on the environment. Landholders are the number one protectors of the environment—that means farmers. At the moment, farmers and small businesses in rural communities see a shifting of the goalposts repeatedly. That’s what’s bothering them. They get the point about the need to protect the environment. They’re tired of having the goalposts shifted on them. That’s why my question was: is this the end of it? So far, what we’ve got is: ‘No, it’s not. In 2026 we’ll have a review and see what happens.’ 

Senator McAllister:  The plan has been in place for a very long time, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Since 2007.  

Senator McAllister:  Our party has been very consistent in supporting the implementation of that plan. Our view is that the plan should be implemented. For much of that period, that was the stated position of the coalition parties as well. Unfortunately, in the final years of the last government—in fact, really across the period of the last government—the Liberal and National parties undermined and sabotaged the plan’s implementation.  

Senator Davey interjecting— 

Senator McAllister:  That has caused a very significant problem.  

Chair:  That is the minister’s view. She is entitled to answer the question as she sees fit.  

Senator Davey:  I dispute that. The terminology ‘sabotaged’ is absolutely— 

Senator McAllister:  Senator, I think you said— 

Chair:  The minister will finish her— 

Senator Davey:  We might have had a different perspective on how to implement the plan.  

Chair:  Senator Davey, the minister will finish her answer and then you will have a turn.  

Senator McAllister:  I think the core facts are before us. In nine years, that government delivered just two of the 450 gigalitres—two gigalitres, under the 450-gigalitre target— 

Senator Davey:  We were focused on the environment and a sustainable level— 

Chair:  Senator Davey! 

Senator McAllister:  which would have meant that the plan would have been completed at some time around the year 4000. Steps needed to be taken to get the plan on track. We are taking those steps. I think the government’s priorities in terms of implementation are very clear. As I’ve indicated a couple of times now, we’re engaged in consultation with the community about the practical ways that we’re going to take the next steps together. 

/1 Comment/by

The UN-WEF Menu Plan for the West

,

The UN-WEF menu plan for the West is about power over the necessities of life — food, energy and water. This unelected socialist bureaucracy, with their loyalty directed to foreign power centres, are busy punishing you and the Australian economy using this made-up concept of a carbon footprint.

The truth is, our agricultural footprint in Australia does not contribute to global “emissions” — not that this would be a problem anyway. Australia has so many trees, grass and crops that every atom of CO2 and methane we produce is re-absorbed into the environment, producing higher growth and heathier soils.

During question time, I asked Senator Wong to provide the figures used to justify the Albanese Government’s nation-killing environmental policies. No sensible answer was received. This debate must be about science and data, not scare campaigns and hubris.

The war on farming is not about the environment, it’s about control. It creates a false sense of food scarcity to make lab-grown, food-like substances a profitable industry for the predatory billionaires.

One Nation will always stand up for Australia’s farmers and rejects the UN-WEF goals of food supply control.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator Gallagher: Could you repeat the question? We missed the last 15 seconds of it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Senator, I am awaiting statistics as we speak, but what I can say to you, and as someone who was the climate change minister, is that there is opportunity in agriculture to deal with climate change. As you know, for many years the National Farmers Federation had a much more forward-leaning policy than the coalition when it came to agriculture and climate change. I’m advised it’s in the order of 16 to 17 per cent. Thank you very much, Senator Watt. For the year to June 2023, the agriculture sector was responsible for 17.7 per cent of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. 

Modelling by ABARES shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. I recall that one of the early reports I read which made me so much more acutely aware of the risk to agriculture of climate change was a report which CSIRO did many years ago, before we won government in 2007. It modelled that Goyder’s line would move south of Clare. For anybody from South Australia—and I know that would be very bad news for Senator Farrell in particular—who knows what the mid-north is like, that is a very frightening prospect. We do think it is important to look at how it is that our food and fibre producers can best adapt to a changing climate. Many are already doing so and are obviously involved in the discussions with government about climate policy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: As the World Economic Forum were meeting in Davos last month, the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, stated that agriculture accounts for between 26 and 33 per cent of world emissions and will account for half a degree of warming by 2050. He further stated that a warming planet will grow less food, not more, and so farming needs to be a major focus of reducing human carbon dioxide production. Minister, how do you reconcile the production of food accounting for between 26 and 33 per cent of emissions with your figure of 17.7? 

Senator WONG: There’s a different denominator, Senator. One is as a percentage of Australian emissions, and one is as a percentage of global emissions. I also am unclear from the context and detail of the quote you gave me whether or not Special Envoy Kerry was dealing with food production further downstream as well. I don’t know what he’s referring to. But I certainly agree with what he was saying about the implications for food security. 

What is also true is that not only is that a substantial issue for Australia, because it will affect our capacity to produce the levels of grain production we have, which is obviously very important for our economy, but also the nations on who this will fall most hard are those nations who have the least capacity to be resilient to this change. If you look at countries like Bangladesh— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The methane cycle, soil carbon sequestration and forest carbon sequestration absorb all Australian agricultural emissions, meaning Australian agriculture contributes nothing to global emissions. Minister, is the war on farming not about the environment but rather about creating a false scarcity of food to force the adoption of laboratory-grown food-like substances that predatory billionaires own for their profit and control? 

Senator WONG: Senator, there’s a lot in that question, but I want to go back to the fundamental proposition: climate change is already affecting our agricultural production now. I read to you the figures earlier: ABARES modelling shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. No, you don’t like the facts, and we know— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick? 

Senator Rennick: A point of order, Madam President: models are not facts. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, that’s a debating point. Minister Wong, please continue. 

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I understand your views on this. I disagree with them. What I would say to you is this: if you go and talk to a lot of Australia’s primary producers, if you go and talk to primary producers in the Pacific— 

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Canavan. 

Senator WONG: or South-East Asia, the truth is that people are already experiencing the impact of climate change on agricultural production. We might want to wish it away for ideological reasons, as Senator Canavan does, but— (Time expired) 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to wait for silence. 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to call an opposition senator, so those senators interjecting are wasting her time. 

/11 Comments/by

It’ll All Come Out in the Wash

,

The World Economic Forum seeks control over the most mundane aspects of our lives, even how often you wash your jeans. While the temptation is to laugh at the hubris of these people, there is a genuinely evil agenda in place that theatre around frequency of washing is designed to distract us from.

Today I spoke about the interference of the globalist billionaires in our food production. This is disturbing. The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the mainstays of life. It is a campaign about control through a false scarcity of food.

The UN and the WEF seek control not only over food production, but energy and ultimately, global finance. It’s time the Australian parliament stands up for farmers and the rural communities. After all, no farmers no food. Only bugs and lab-grown ‘meat’.

Transcript

When the World Economic Forum launched their social media campaign in 2018 carrying the slogan, ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy,’ I thought that finally the predatory billionaires who try to run the world had shown their hand. The public could finally see their fate if the World Economic Forum are allowed to succeed. That didn’t happen. The media, who have the same owners as the World Economic Forum, persisted with calling the World Economic Forum’s evil agenda ‘a conspiracy theory’. Even in this place there are only a handful of senators with the courage to call out the agenda for what it is: economic exploitation and social control. 

Over the break, the World Economic Forum revealed another aspect of their plan and they launched a campaign against laundry. Yes, really—laundry! They said jeans should not be washed more than once a month and most other clothes washed once a week. You will wear dirty clothes and be smelly and happy, apparently.

The temptation is to laugh at their desire to control even mundane aspects of our lives, yet the truth is much more frightening than that. The World Economic Forum have now turned their evil agenda to food.

The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the necessities of life—food. Predatory, parasitic billionaires, owning near urban intensive production facilities, are producing food-like substances for the masses, forcing the public into acceptance of the World Economic Forum’s fake global warming scam. These are their own stated motives: control food and control people. Whoever controls the food supply controls the people. Whoever controls the energy can control whole continents. Whoever controls money can control the whole world. The World Economic Forum and the predatory billionaires they represent are currently trying to do all three.

The Greens, Labor and the globalist Liberals will, of course, support the World Economic Forum. It is time the Australian parliament stood up for farmers and rural communities and for all Australians. 

/5 Comments/by

The Labor-Greens Agriculture Wrecking Bill

In 2016, I stood in the senate for the first time and warned that the United Nations wanted to reduce everyday Australians to the status of serfs through climate policy. I said back then we need an #AusExit, that our values and way of life were at risk from the dangerous socialist agendas of the UN. And here we are now.

Here is more legislation being pushed through Australia’s house of review, the Senate, without proper scrutiny or debate. Labor is doing more dodgy deals on behalf of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Labor has also introduced a Motion to allow the Greens to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as part of this Bill. This allows the Greens to put a Bill of their own making onto the end of the government’s Bill then vote it all through in one go. A Bill that we cannot review, amend or debate. This isn’t conventional parliamentary process. This is undemocratic dictatorship.

The ‘Nature Repair’ Bill allows large corporations to greenwash their image by leveraging the PR benefit of Nature Repair Projects they buy. It provides the means to restrict productive capacity through taking productive farmland and returning it to Gaia. It will prevent Australians and visitors to our country from being able to get out and generally enjoy our magnificent national parks because it hands more control over to traditional owners.

The globalist agenda is being rolled out in the self-interest of the world’s predatory investment funds. It’s delivered through the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum and implemented in shoddy, rushed legislation like this bill proposes.

One Nation proudly stands against everything this Bill represents and I offer the same advice as I did in 2016. We must exit the United Nations #AusExit!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (20:06): As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, it’s my duty to ensure I deal with every bill that comes before the Senate fully and properly. All too often, this government does dodgy deals with the Teals, the crossbench and the Greens to get legislation through without scrutiny. This is legislation that’s written for reasons of ideology, not human need, and that as a result makes things worse. This is legislation that must get through without debate, lest the electorate be informed about what the government is really doing to them in the name of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals.

I’m speaking about the Nature Repair Bill 2023, only 30 minutes from when the vote will be taken, yet I’m speaking to an interim bill. The massive amendments to this bill, which I know now are substantial, had not been revealed to the Senate just an hour ago. It appears to be the government’s plan to provide the amendments and then require an immediate vote. That was exactly what we saw. That’s not how the house of review, our Senate, works.

Even more troubling is that the government now has a motion that would allow the Greens to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as part of this bill—news to us until an hour ago. What that means is the Greens, with Teal Senator Pocock’s support, are being allowed to put a bill of their own making onto the end of the government’s bill and then vote it all through—a bill we can’t read, can’t amend and can’t debate. There’s a longstanding convention in the Senate that we do one bill at a time and amend only the bill at hand, a rule the government are happy to ignore when they get desperate enough numbers to do a deal with the Greens and Teals. This isn’t parliamentary process; it is undemocratic dictatorship. What a joke, and the people will be paying for it. When we call the Greens watermelons—green on the outside and red on the inside—this is why. Soviet Russia would pull a stunt like this, not democratic Australia.

I’ve spoken on several occasions recently on how this Labor government is best friends with the world’s predatory parasitic billionaires. This bill is a perfect example of that. Like the failed national electricity market, which is really a racket, this bill allows large corporations to greenwash their businesses. To explain, greenwashing allows a business—most likely a foreign multinational company—to make a claim such as being ‘net zero friendly’. That’s simply not true. They’re deceiving investors and customers in the process. They get to net zero by purchasing green certificates or carbon dioxide credits to balance out the environmental costs supposedly incurred in their business operation. A European Union report found that 95 per cent of carbon dioxide credits came from projects that did not make a difference to the environment, and Europol just a few years ago said 95 per cent are crooked. In other words, it’s all a con.

The mining industry have come out in favour of offsets, which they call ‘avoided-loss offsets’. These offsets occur after purchasing and improving an area of land with the same habitat as that which is destroyed or damaged in the development. This may appear to be mining-friendly, yet it’s really more expense and more green tape that would best be handled through the existing system of remediation—put it back the way you found it, or better, which is what is happening.

Indeed, one could be concerned that these avoided loss offsets are an alternative to remediation. I certainly hope not.

The bill helps wind turbines with the horrible problem of clubbing koalas on the koalas’ property—clubbing them to death! They could literally club 10 koalas to death and then buy a national biodiversity certificate for 10 new koalas bred somewhere else. As we speak, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit’s review is underway. The review is looking at a thousand carbon dioxide credit generating projects to see if they were fair dinkum and have been kept up. The lessons from that review were going to be added to this bill to ensure the national biodiversity certificate system was legitimate. Bringing forward this bill actually ruins that process.

One Nation opposes greenwashing, although, in most cases, we would suggest that the better option would be for our mining and manufacturing industries to first use environmentally friendly techniques, as they usually do. Then, having done that, be proud of their role in developing the economy, providing jobs and supplying materials that people need for a life of abundance. Perhaps that’s just we conservatives taking care of the natural environment and taking care of people. Some submissions to the Senate inquiry called on the government to purchase the certificates themselves to provide certainty that, should a project be completed, there would be someone to buy the resulting certificate. Minister Plibersek has ruled this out—the only decision in this whole process One Nation can support.

I was amused with the submission from champagne socialists in the Byron Shire Council, who submitted that— quote—’free market alone may not facilitate rapid uptake of this scheme,’ and called on the federal government to kickstart the market by committing to purchasing certificates itself. It will never stop. I would think that the federal government would be better off spending money on tax cuts for working Australians and paying off our debt so that interest rates come down, but that’s just conservative values again—human values; real environmental values.

Minister Plibersek has described this bill as creating a ‘green Wall Street’. Wall Street provides a means for financing businesses to expand productive capacity. This bill provides a means to restrict productive capacity
through taking productive farmland and returning it to Gaia. I don’t see the comparison with a genuine financial product, unless the minister was making a comparison to Bernie Madoff. That would be accurate in that case. The product itself, biodiversity credits, is subjective and, over time, will require more and more personnel to conduct compliance on an ever-increasing number of projects, just like the National Electricity Market—the racket. This does not increase productive capacity. It does increase bureaucracy at the public’s expense, of course. Many submissions opposed the use of these certificates for environmental offsets, including the Greens’, and I note their amendments remove the offsets for the purpose of these certificates. This would seem a significant conflict between the minister’s intent and the Greens’ intent. What a mess! The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a solution to a problem that has not yet been defined and does not meet real needs, just like the failed National Electricity Market.

The government is working on an update on the entire Environmental Protection and Biosecurity Conservation Act—the EPBC—informed by the Samuels review into the legislation from three years ago. Those amendments will frame the problem this bill is supposedly solving. This is something that Senator Thorpe has correctly pointed out in the second reading amendment, which I will support. How do you pass a bill like this ahead of the implementation of the Samuels review? How do we know which projects should be supported and which are not needed, or, worse, which projects are a load of bollocks, like the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, as most climate projects are—climate fraud?

In relation to ensuring integrity around the use of offsets, the Australian government is working to introduce a new national environmental standard for actions and restoration contributions. This new standard is expected to include a requirement that offsets must deliver net gain for impacted protected matters and that biodiversity projects certified under the Nature Repair Market Bill will only be able to be used as offsets if they meet the new standard. What new standard? Oh, wait, you haven’t written it yet! Great. Minister Plibersek is trying to pass a bill that implements a standard that hasn’t been written yet. Can someone please give the government’s legislation chocolate wheel back to rotary and we’ll go back to doing things properly—you know, in the correct order.

This legislation implements something called the Nature Positive Plan. That sounds good. This is the government’s overarching environmental blueprint. I notice that, on page 32, this plan includes a provision that
traditional owners will have more control over Commonwealth national parks. More control!

Australians who are used to bushwalking, camping and generally enjoying the beautiful national parks Australia offers are flat out of luck under this Labor government. ‘No nature for you. Get back to your 15-minute cities.’ That’s exactly what the United Nations sustainable development goals do—they reduce everyday Australians to the status of serfs, imprisoned in their 15-minute cities, locked in a digital identity prison, owning nothing and eating bugs instead of real food. I first said that in the Senate in 2016, and the sniggers were obvious. Well, nobody’s sniggering now. Now you’re all trying to justify the abomination your globalist masters are working to impose.

Over the remainder of the Albanese government, those in this chamber will be required to face the reality of this government’s globalist agenda. It’s not an agenda written for the benefit of everyday Australians or for the Labor heartland. It’s an agenda that serves the self-interest of the world’s predatory investment funds, delivered through lobby groups like the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum and implemented repeatedly in legislation like this. It’s an agenda that will make life a misery for everyday Australians, sending them back to serfdom. One Nation stands against everything this bill represents. It proudly stands against everything this bill represents.

/12 Comments/by

Dirty by Nature

The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a deceptive name for a dirty bill that the Albanese government is rushing through the senate more than four months earlier than the committee requested.

What it’s really about is the federal government using the public purse to financially coerce farmers to lock up their land or walk off it altogether to satisfy the dictates of foreign, unelected climate change bureaucrats.

What’s the hurry to get this through? Does this government feel the winds of change blowing in its direction?

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I seek leave to make a short statement. 

The PRESIDENT: You have one minute with leave. 

Senator Roberts: The government’s motion to rush this inquiry report through today, more than four months earlier than the committee requested and the Senate agreed, is a dodgy, dirty deal. The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a deceptive, arrogant title. It’s really about the federal government financially coercing farmers to lock up their land or walk off it to satisfy the dictates of foreign, unelected climate change bureaucrats, like COP28. No wonder the government wants to cut short the inquiry into this bill and rush the bill through this week. All of the climate rent seekers are happy to support this bill because, eventually, it will lead to money in their pockets from the people of Australia. While farmers are paid to lock up their land, a lack of agricultural production will cause untold human misery both in Australia and overseas. One Nation will be opposing this rushed dirty deal. Give the committee the time it originally requested to make its report. 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Chisholm seeking a variation to a reporting date of a committee be agreed to. 

The Senate divided.

/2 Comments/by

An exclusive evening with Senator Malcolm Roberts and Rikkie-Lee Tyrell MLC

BOOK NOW – Come and join us for cocktails and conversation of all things politics at this one-off event at one of Brisbane’s most picturesque and historical venues.

With an auction, a raffle and a lucky door prize on offer, it will be a fun night and a rare opportunity to put the world right with a couple of experts.

RSVP Essential: https://www.onenation.org.au/bridging-conversations

Friday, 16 June 2023 | 6pm to 9pm

Story Bridge Hotel
200 Main St
Kangaroo Point, QLD 4169
Australia
Google map and directions

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/bridging-conversations

/by

Would you eat “meat” grown in a lab petrie dish?

There is an application being looked at right now for humans to be sold laboratory grown meat.

I want to know, if all of these plant meat, lab meat, beyond meat products are so good, why do they want to be called “meat”?

Unfortunately, the Senate voted down my motion to have this issue referred to an inquiry.

Transcript

As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our One Queensland community, I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September2023:

(a) the suitability for human consumption of in vitro protein, also known as lab-grown meat; and

(b) any other related matters.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand are processing an application right now to approve laboratory grown meat, known in Australia as in-vitro meat. It’s called cultured meat, although I can see nothing cultured about it; it’s slop. I’m horrified that bureaucrats, university academics and representatives of the business sector that will make bank out of this move could decide this once-in-a-century shift in agricultural production—conflicts of interest!

Today One Nation is moving to refer in-vitro meat to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry. This reflects that FSANZ, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, reports to the minister for agriculture.

There are 450,000 people employed in the red meat industry in Australia, working in 63,000 businesses, who collectively are the lifeblood of the bush, the lifeblood of our country. This does not include the poultry industry, which is the subject of this first fake meat application. The poultry industry produces 1.3 million tonnes annually of high-quality, affordable meat—white meat. This contributes $7.9 billion to our economy, employing another 58,000 Australians.

Seafood is another industry where in-vitro technology is being concocted. Seafood contributes $3.1 billion to the Australian economy, employing another 17,000 people. Australia exports beautiful natural produce which is in strong demand worldwide because of its high quality and reasonable price. The livelihoods of half a million Australians, and their families, rest on the outcome of this inquiry. The economic welfare of rural Australia rests on the outcome of this inquiry.

In-vitro meat has many issues that do need an inquiry. The cells that are cultured—yes, cultured—in an intensive near-urban-area industrial production facility are obtained using a painful muscle biopsy on a live animal. Every year, thousands of biopsies will be required to get the muscle cells needed to grow enough fake meat for projected production. At the same time, the Red Meat 2030 plan provides for a doubling of the price of red meat, pricing natural meat out of the reach of everyday Australians. This is an attempt to force the consumption of fake meat, like it or not.

In-vitro meat is a seismic shift in health, nutrition and culture. We don’t know what issues will arise on the production line for these products, or what diseases, what fungi or what bacteria will creep into a facility like this. Most likely, meat will still need antibiotics and chemicals to control such contamination. With in-vitro meat, the cancer risk is high, as cells are replicated over and over, increasing the chances of a cancerous mutation being packaged for sale. Real animals have a self-healing system, though, that hunts down and kills cancerous and precancerous cells every minute of every day. In-vitro cells do not.

An alternative technique to in-vitro replication of muscle cells is to use a bioreactor to use cornstarch, plant skeletons, fungi and gelatine to engineer fake meat in an immortal cell line. What a name—an immortal cell line. The final product has all the nutrition contained in whatever nutrient supplements or additives can be added to this slop before it is formed into fake meat. It is slop with nutrients.

The environmental credentials of in-vitro meat are suspect. In-vitro meat still needs food, hormones and growth factors to grow. The equation is still ‘energy in, stored energy out’. The faster the growth, the more profit is generated. And there will be a lot of profit. The billionaires who are lining up to bring in-vitro meat to the market are the same billionaires who are telling us how much damage cows are supposedly doing to the environment. Nobody is apparently concerned about the obvious conflict of interest.

Livestock production is not bad for the environment. Livestock farts, burps and belches are part of the biogenic carbon cycle, which works like this: plants absorb carbon dioxide and, through the process of photosynthesis, harness the energy of the sun to produce carbohydrates such as cellulose. Cattle are able to break down cellulose for food, releasing methane into the atmosphere. Methane is CH4. Note the ‘C’ for the carbon atom.

Over a 12-year period, the methane is converted back into carbon dioxide through hydroxyl oxidation, a naturally occurring process in our atmosphere. The carbon released in that process is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being stored in a plant and then released when the plant consumed it. It’s a cycle. For a constant herd size, the cattle industry is adding no additional methane to the atmosphere—none. Insect-based fake meats and lab-grown in-vitro fake meats are a solution to a problem that does not exist.

I know why this is happening. Fake meats offer a scalable production system in a controlled environment located right next to major markets, offering high profits on a predictable, stable cash flow, independent of weather conditions—natural weather conditions.

No wonder the billionaire predators that run the world are lining up for their slice of this new multibillion dollar market. All they have to do is get their mates, their underlings, in government and the bureaucracy to persecute farmers out of existence, and the market for fake meats will present itself. Look at Holland and New Zealand, and now look at America, Britain, Canada and, with this application, Australia.

Why should we even let them call this rubbish ‘meat’? Meat is a natural product brimming with goodness. Fake meat is a chemistry experiment that has more in common with pet food than human food. It is flavourless cells cultivated in a test tube, with additives for taste and additives for so-called ‘nutrition’. It’s fake. As Senator McDonald’s inquiry into the definitions of meat and other animal products recommended, this stuff should not be labelled or sold as meat.

Clarkson’s Farm, on Prime Video, has been, I’m sure, an eye-opener for city dwellers who have no clue how bad the persecution of farmers who grow our food has become. After watching the very entertaining Jeremy Clarkson teach himself farming, contending with the rules, the paperwork, the long hours, the lawyers, the activists, the heartbreak and the never-ending expense, one has to ask, ‘Why would farmers do it?’ That is the idea. If billionaire predators can get decent, hardworking, salt-of-the-earth farmers to walk off their land, walk away from the love of providing the public with nature’s bounty, they can sell their Frankenstein food from their factories and make out like bandits while wrecking the health of everyday citizens.

I hear people say that fake meat will be dearer than natural meat, yet the billionaires promoting this putrid slop are not spending all this money just to make a product that is less tasty, less nutritious, less safe and dearer than the competition. Production volumes will soon ramp up, and quality and safety checks will be compromised to ensure the product is cheaper. The war on farmers will keep ramping up until room in the market has been conjured for their fake meat.

I understand that Labor, the Greens and teal Senator Pocock will oppose this motion, How can the Labor Party possibly still consider themselves the party of the people when over and over they sell out the people? The further left the teals, Greens and Labor Party march, the less relevant they become to the lives of everyday Australians and, worse, the more harm they do to the lives of everyday Australians.

I thank Senator McDonald for her comments and ask the Senate for its support for this motion. As long as we have amazing farmers bringing us natural, safe, nutritious protein, the world will never need dangerous food grown in a laboratory.

One Nation is now the party of the people.

/5 Comments/by

Destructive fire ants keep spreading – Biosecurity at Estimates

, , ,

Farmers at Gatton and beyond are petrified of the spread of destructive fire ants. Fire ants ravage crops and if they get into animals, they drive them crazy with pain. Left unchecked, they’ll turn productive areas effectively barren.

I asked the Department of Agriculture about what we are doing to eradicate them. Unfortunately, it looks like there isn’t enough money allocated to eradicate the destructive fire ants.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] How much is it costing Australia in funding the fight against spread and ultimate eradication of fire ants?

[Mr Tongue] Senator, it’s approximately $450 million dollars. I’ll defer to my colleague Ms Laduzko.

[Mr Metcalfe] These are red imported fire ants?

Yeah, red imported fire ants.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got domestic fire ants?

[Mr Metcalfe] No, we’ve also got the yellow crazy ants as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got a lot of ants.

[Mr Ludisco] The red imported fire ants particularly which are a particular problem in the Brisbane Valley.

[Malcolm Roberts] 400 million over what period?

[Ms Laduzko] Sorry, Senator Roberts, we have a ten year funding programme currently agreed across all States and Territories in the Commonwealth and the budgeted allocation for that current ten year programme, about which we’re nearly halfway through is 414 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] So about 41 million a year.

[Ms Laduzko] Yeah, roughly speaking.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How successful is the management and eradication programme?

[Ms Laduzko] We are four years into a sustained effort at eradicating an invasive ant that has got quite a wide spread. I think and I think I might’ve given this evidence last time to the committee which is we have been learning a lot more about the ant. It’s a very large scale eradication so we’ve been making progress but in the meantime, the programme which is actually led by the Queensland government has been trialling different ways of killing the ant through different bait combinations and technology so I’d have to say we’ve seen some positive signs and there are some learnings around eradication but the actual size of the task and whether it’s sufficiently funded are matters for current discussion.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t got any concrete measures other than that, you’ve just making progress? Not trying to be cheeky, I just would like to have something quantified. How do you assess progress? Because that’s an awful lot of money.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, assessing progress is an interesting question and partly we go through cycles of eradication and surveillance so we eradicate to a programme and then we go back and do surveillance to see how effective those measures have been. If you want specific information, I’d probably prefer to take it on notice because that would be what I would source from the program-leading Queensland government to make sure I’m accurate.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] And Senator, just to describe there is the programme is run by an independent committee chaired by Wendy Crake who is a very distinguished authority in natural resource management matters.

[Malcolm Roberts] Queensland or Australia?

[Mr Tongue] Australia, Australia and as Ms Laduzko said, jointly funded and there is quite a significant amount of detail that we can provide you on notice about the roll out of the programme, how they’re measuring effectiveness, etc. It is just a very big eradication programme, that’s all.

[Malcolm Roberts] That would be useful because I’ve attended a meeting at Gatton, in the heart of the Valley, and the residents there were pretty upset that they don’t trust what the Queensland government is doing so yeah, I’d like to learn more about it, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] Certainly.

[Malcolm Roberts] How effective are similar overseas eradication programmes?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that it’s true to say, Senator, that nowhere has anyone successfully eradicated red imported fire ants. In fact, Australia is the only successful eradication outcomes and they were on smaller incursions that were, we were able to contain to port environments so we have successfully eradicated small outbreaks but it’s not my understanding that any other country has ever managed to eradicate.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is that ominous for the Valley?

[Ms Laduzko] Well, I think it gives us pause for thought around the size of the eradication and the funding commitment and what our long term strategy is but we do have it, you know, it’s, I think, there’s some stats that suggest if we’d done nothing from when we first saw it, it would already have largely covered the entirety of Australia by now and we have managed to keep it to a defined region.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay so in that sense, it’s effective.

[Ms Laduzko] In that sense, it’s effective.

[Malcolm Roberts] Or it may have delayed the overrun of Australia? We don’t really know yet.

[Ms Laduzko] That’s probably a fair call.

[Mr Tongue] Red imported fire ant is viable in 99 per cent of the Australian continent, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s actually being done on this in Australia? Are you just containing it or you’re trying to eradicate it? Sounds like you’re trying to eradicate it.

[Mr Tongue] It is an eradication programme. It has been going under various guises for a number of years now. In fact, this is a ten year programme. Prior to that, I think we’ve done a seven year programme ahead of that so it’s an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] How far are we into the ten years? Excuse me for interrupting.

[Mr Tongue] We would be between year four and year five.

[Malcolm Roberts] So we’re halfway through.

[Ms Laduzko] A little less than halfway.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, okay. So what’s being done in terms of the actual on the ground, what’s happening? I know the Queensland government is…

[Mr Tongue] Sorry, it’s quite a complex programme and it’s very large. The nuts and bolts part of it is we’ve agreed a programme for how we approach the eradication efforts so we have zoned certain areas and they’ve embedded a sentiment of moving from west to east with rolling eradication efforts and suppressing in those other areas. I haven’t got to so hard eradication, suppression, suppression, rolling forward but we also have to put a lot of investment in the edge to make sure it doesn’t further escape. The west to east model goes from rural land through to urban environments and that changes the nature of how you do eradication and how you engage the community.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it makes it difficult.

[Ms Laduzko] It does make it a bit more difficult, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s hard to tell where are we. At the moment, we seem to be stabilising in your opinion?

[Ms Laduzko] I think at the moment we have certainly, you’d have to say we haven’t allowed it to become worse and we’ve managed, I think, some success in the semi-rural areas. The question will be, as we get closer to those urban environments.

[Malcolm Roberts] What else needs to be done? What more needs to be done?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that’s an open question. You know, the scale of the response is enormous and it often comes down to funding and commitment of participants. Once you’re in an urban environment, everyone needs to be willing and engaged.

[Malcolm Roberts] So are there enough resources to achieve eradication?

[Ms Laduzko] Not something I’d like to comment on right now, Senator, we’re going through a bit of a review. Part of the resourcing question goes to what other strategies we can adopt. Is the technology moving ahead of us? Is the baits, are the baits becoming more effective? A few things like that so I think that’s probably a question perhaps you might like to pose in maybe next session when we’ve done a bit of our own efficiency review.

[Mr Tongue] And I should add, Senator, that it is a science-driven programme so we’re drawing on the best possible science we can. We’re trying to do something, as you’ve alluded to, that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the world. It is success to contain it at some level, it is success to contain it because it is a uniquely adapted little ant that really can move quite swiftly if left uncontained. The challenges around the urban areas, you know, baits, poisons, schools, backyards, you know, those sorts of things are quite difficult. We are also finding, I think in the programme, that the cycle of wet and dry, particularly in that kind of area of Southeast Queensland, can frustrate efforts, you know, lay baits, it rains, all of that work is lost. You go back again. So finding the kind of rhythm, the drum beat that will beat it is something that’s just under constant review. It is an enormous eradication programme and as Ms Laduzko says we’re re-looking at it at the moment and governments will need to make decisions.

[Mr Metcalfe] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Tongue] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Metcalfe] But with a view of how we do it, can we do it better?

[Mr Tongue] Can we do it better? If we up the cash burn rate, would we go faster? If we slowed the cash burn rate, will we do better? Some of those questions, you know. What is the right modality to get rid of it?

[Malcolm Roberts] Before I ask you my next question, it probably is associated with the next question, but just make the comment, not having a go at you but when people use the word ‘science’ around here, I usually start digging because it’s just usually opinion and no science. And in Queensland, farming is being devastated by the Queensland Labour government, citing science but being nowhere near science and they’re destroying whole communities, whole regions and farms so I just make that point. I’d like to see the science rather than believe it.

[Mr Tongue] Sure.

[Malcolm Roberts] So moving on that, on what basis are federal monies provided to the States to assist in these programmes? Because listening to a forum at Gatton, people seem be questioning the Queensland State government’s motives. Is there a different formula, for example, for stabilising and containing versus eradicating?

[Mr Tongue] There is a couple of ways to answer that. In the environment we work in when we do eradication responses, like for things that aren’t yet established, we have agreed deeds where States and Territories and the Commonwealth and industry, where relevant, have an approach they use for eradication and how they cost share that. The Reefer eradication programme we’re talking about started in advance of us having an appropriate deed structure to use so it’s run a little bit differently to other eradication responses but in essence, for us, we have a partnership agreement with the Queensland government that sets out milestones that need to be met in order for us to provide funding to a schedule.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there are conditions attached?

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, yep but consistent with many of these what are largely termed environmental eradication responses, the Commonwealth is contributing 50 per cent of the cost.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So is this in any way an enduring money spinner for the States?

[Ms Laduzko] A money spinner? No, I wouldn’t characterise it that way.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could they manipulate it by taking various strategies, for example containment versus eradication, just to prolong it? That was a concern of constituents in Gatton area.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, you can see how that comes ’cause it gets to a point where in all eradications, this applies in small ones, large ones, you have to make a concluded position about whether you think eradication remains feasible and cost-effective. At the moment, we are signed up to an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[Mr Tongue] And because of the structure of it, I would argue, Senator, how would I put this? All the jurisdictions involved, other than Queensland, have a huge interest in ensuring that the programme is running well because they’re all on the hook to fund it and so it would be very difficult for Queensland to manipulate a circumstance with the gaze of all the other jurisdictions upon it as well as the community where, if you like, they were turning this into some sort of money spinner.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s different about Queensland?

[Mr Metcalfe] That’s a very open question, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from the fact that we win State of Origin very often.

[Mr Metcalfe] Well, that’s right, yeah. You’re talking to a Queenslander here, of course.

[Mr Tongue] So this eradication is just, is different because of scale and it’s different because it’s outside what we know as the deed structure. So what we have is risk sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and industry, in the agricultural industries, they’re known as the plant deed and the animal deed, and they set up arrangements where we share risk and depending on the nature of the effort that needs to go into deal with a response to some pest or disease or weed, the scale of Commonwealth investment changes and those arrangements are managed by Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia and they’re bodies that, if you like, sit outside government and outside industry but they work across to manage those deeds. In this instance, we don’t have that arrangement so we’ve set up this independent style committee.

[Ms Laduzko] Just a slight qualification, we do but that arrangement came into place after we started.

[Mr Tongue] After we started this. This one’s slightly unusual and also scale, it’s vastly different.

[Ms Laduzko] And sorry, Senator, can I just correct something? I said 414 million, it’s 411.4. I think I was just truncating numbers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate the accuracy. And you’re going to send us some details on how you’re assessing progress? In a quantified way.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, if you’d like to put them through on notice and we’ll answer to that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Quantified.

[Mr Tongue] Yep.

[Ms Laduzko] Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

[Chair] Oh, right on time, Senator Roberts.

/by