The people of Central Queensland deserve clear answers, not continuous delays, when it comes to the Paradise Dam new wall project. The last public update on foundation geological mapping was in late 2024 and it’s time to find out what actual progress has been made.
Mr Darrough from the National Water Gridadmitted that the detailed business case was finalised in July 2025 and evaluated by Infrastructure Australia in September 2025. And here we are in 2026 and still a formal proposal for the revised dam wall hasn’t been submitted.
The estimated cost has skyrocketed to a staggering $4.4 billion because they realised the old wall couldn’t be reinstated, and they would have to build a new one downstream.
The federal government has committed $600 million (with $50 million already spent on early works), and the rest is just sitting in the budget.
The federal department is just sitting on its hands waiting on the Queensland state government to get its act together and put forward a formal funding proposal.
Meanwhile, Queenslanders wait for water security.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again today. I have some brief questions about water infrastructure. I’m told this needs to be asked here. Is anyone familiar with Paradise Dam?
Senator Watt: Oh yes!
Senator ROBERTS: It’s about the new dam wall for Paradise Dam. The last update we can find on this project is the conduct of foundation geological mapping conducted by Sunwater in November 2024. Has anything progressed beyond that and, if so, what?
Senator Watt: While the officials are getting ready, I’ll say that this is a Queensland government project. There will be a limit to the role that this department has in that project, but obviously the officials can share whatever they have.
Mr Darrough: The detailed business case was finalised in July 2025 and is being considered by the Queensland government. The Queensland government hasn’t submitted a proposal for the new project with the revised dam wall arrangements. Infrastructure Australia published its evaluation of the detailed business case in September 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: Who’s funding the new dam wall and in what proportions?
Mr Darrough: The Australian government made a commitment of $600 million; $50 million of that is contracted with Queensland to deliver early enabling works and the detailed business case, and the balance of the funding remains available in the budget.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you expect the total cost to be? How much will the Queensland government pay?
Mr Darrough: I think it’s on the record that it’s an estimated $4.4 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: So the vast majority will come from the Queensland government?
Mr Darrough: The Queensland government hasn’t put forward a proposal to the Australian government for funding.
Senator Watt: In case you’re unaware, Senator, the commitment that our government made of $600 million was 50 per cent of the funding for—was it going to be a new dam originally?
Mr Darrough: It was originally to reinstate the old dam wall, but, when the early work was done on that, Sunwater realised that it couldn’t be restored and that they needed to do a new dam wall downstream, so the price has been revisited. That’s also some time ago, so the estimates have gone up through escalation factors in any case.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re waiting on the Queensland government to get the total cost?
Mr Darrough: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any formula for funding of that from federal compared to state?
Mr Darrough: No. The National Water Grid Infrastructure Investment Framework puts in place arrangements whereby states and territories can ask for up to 50 per cent of funding for capital and construction projects, but there is no formulaic base. The level of contribution that the Australian government would make is a matter that’s decided by the government, and it’s informed by the business case evaluation from Infrastructure Australia, the proposal from Queensland and advice from the department.
Senator ROBERTS: So, in summary, you’re waiting on the Queensland government.
Mr Darrough: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to Urannah Dam. It was cancelled by the Albanese Labor government in 2022, I understand. We have the preliminary business case, which was released. I don’t have the final business case and environmental impact study, which I’m assuming showed why the project was not feasible. Were these completed?
Mr Darrough: On Urannah Dam, the then Australian government committed $22.65 million to support the business case, environmental approvals and geotech. On 16 December 2022, the delivery agent, Bowen River Utilities, announced it had withdrawn the scheme from environmental assessment processes in Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: Was any reason given?
Mr Darrough: I’d need to take that on notice. The funding that was actually in the budget for construction of Urannah Dam was within the infrastructure portfolio, not the water elements that transferred to DCCEEW.
Senator ROBERTS: In whose hands is the final business case?
Mr Darrough: I’ll need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: And also the environmental impact study?
Mr Darrough: Again, I’ll take that on notice. We encourage jurisdictions to publish business cases that the Australian government contributes to, but, ultimately, the Commonwealth-state relations and the funding arrangement that we have puts ownership of those documents in the hands of the jurisdiction. It’s ultimately a matter for them to decide whether or not they publish.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state?
Mr Darrough: Yes, but we encourage in all cases that it be published.
Senator ROBERTS: If you have access to it, may we have a copy, please?
Mr Darrough: I’ll need to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine. If the business case says there’s not enough use for the water, then are you aware that there’s a Project Iron Boomerang or, actually, Capricorn Steel, which is a large project—I won’t go into the details—that would involve putting a steel mill at Collinsville?
Mr Darrough: I can talk more broadly about the Burdekin Basin, of which the Urannah area is part. The Commonwealth is partnering with Queensland on the Burdekin Regional Water Assessment, and that process is under way, looking at a basin-wide assessment of demand and supply for water in the catchment.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to know this, but I’ll ask it anyway. Are you aware of the potential for a steel mill at Collinsville and other steel mills in Central Queensland? Mr Darrough: Only from newspapers.
I wanted a clear update on major projects vital to Queenslanders. As usual, we are seeing a lot of bureaucratic foot-dragging.
First up, I called out the very slow pace on the M1. The Infrastructure Priority List shows we are still stuck at Stage 2 and 3 of the framework, waiting on the Queensland State Government to get its act together on a business case. While a tiny 10-kilometre section was upgraded, the M1 is 80 kilometres long. When I pushed for a timeline on the rest of the highway, the department couldn’t give me a straight answer on the spot and took it on notice.
It was a similar story with the Centenary Highway. Whilst the new bridge in western Brisbane is welcome, the highway is 42 kilometres long. I asked the exact same question: when will the rest of the widening actually happen? The department’s answer? We’re still in the “business case stage.”
We then discussed the Paradise Dam. We support rebuilding the dam wall, however the numbers must make sense. When I asked about the timeline and cooperation from the Crisafulli Government, the department shirked responsibility and passed the buck, claiming it falls under the Department of Climate Change (DCCEEW), not land transport.
The Queensland Inland Freight Route (Mungindi to Charters Towers) is a brilliant project that One Nation has been pushing for a long time. It links vital regional networks from Roma to Longreach and up to Townsville. I wanted to know why it has stalled and when the Minister will use some real leadership to get it moving. The department clarified it’s a road upgrade, not rail, and provided an update on early works, including pavement widening and bridge upgrades on the Carnarvon Highway and Gregory Developmental Road. It’s a massive multi-year project, and it needs to be finished.
Lastly, I wanted to know why the Port of Gladstone land and sea access upgrade has been stuck as an “identified problem” since 2015 with zero progress. I asked if they were considering the major I-PG Global container facility proposal, however the officials could not answer, instead directing me to Infrastructure Australia who handles those assessments.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Canavan. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like an update on the infrastructure plan for the country. My first question is this. Referencing the infrastructure priority list dated 6 February 2026 on the Brisbane to Gold Coast highway it says the next step is: Proponent to develop potential investment options (Stage 2 of Infrastructure Australia’s Assessment Framework), and complete business case development (Stage 3 of the Framework). The proponent is the Queensland state government; is that correct?
Mr Bourne: Yes.
Ms Hall: If that’s what’s on the infrastructure priority list, yes, that would be correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that a 10-kilometre section of the highway was upgraded, yet the M1 is 80 kilometres long. When will we see progress on upgrading the rest of the M1?
Ms Hall: We can take you through what programs we have on the M1 currently, but any additional requests for funding would have to come from the Queensland government.
Mr Bourne: Would you like us to go through our projects along the M1?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. Or could you put it on notice, maybe? I’ve got a few other questions. Are they all short answers?
Mr Bourne: There’s quite a bit to them. We can take that on notice if that’s how you’d prefer to do it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The centenary highway is the next project. The new bridge is welcome, so thank you for that. People in western Brisbane appreciate it. However, the centenary highway is 42 kilometres long, and, on the plans to widen the motorway, let’s talk about what to do next. It’s the same question. When will we see the rest of the widening occur on the centenary highway?
Mr Bourne: Currently, we have a project called the Centenary Motorway upgrade, and that is a business case that is currently underway. That will be subject to the outcomes of that business case.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’re at the business case stage?
Mr Bourne: Yes, if we’re referring to the Centenary Motorway upgrade.
Senator ROBERTS: The next one is Paradise Dam. We don’t disagree with the decision taken to rebuild the wall—let me make that clear. My question, though, is straightforward. Construction on the replacement dam wall was listed at a cost of $4.1 billion. However, the project is still awaiting a business case. What stage is this project at? When is construction likely to start? And what is the level of cooperation from the Crisafulli government to start the rebuild?
Mr Betts: That would be a matter for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
Senator ROBERTS: The department of climate change?
Mr Betts: Yes, DCCEEW.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s under their purview, not yours?
Mr Betts: Correct. We are responsible for land transport infrastructure.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re excited about this next one. The Queensland inland freight route capacity and safety proposal is to bring Inland Rail over the border at Mungindi and then take it due north to Charters Towers. This would link in with the Brisbane line and the Toowoomba airport from Roma, the existing line to Longreach, the Port of Gladstone with a small missing link across to the Gladstone heavy rail network and to Mount Isa and Townsville along the existing MITEZ route. This is the right alignment for Inland Rail. At last, we’re seeing progress. This proposal appears to have stalled, though, waiting on the Crisafulli government to do something. At what point, Minister, do you use your power to just get these brilliant infrastructure projects moving? We’re delighted to hear of these projects.
Senator Chisholm: Can the department provide any update on where that is at?
Mr Bourne: Senator, if you’re referring to the inland freight route upgrade—because I think you also mentioned the Inland Rail as well—
Senator ROBERTS: The inland freight route capacity and safety—going from Mungindi to Charters Towers.
Mr Bourne: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: We love the idea! It’s something we’ve been pushing for a while.
Ms Hall: That’s a road upgrade, not a rail upgrade. We can take you through the inland freight route upgrade.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.
Mr Brummitt: There’s an early works package that’s continuing at the Carnarvon Highway between Injune and Rolleston, the Dawson River Bridge and Gregory Developmental Road, and pavement strengthening and widening of various sections as well. Then, also on the Carnarvon Highway, the Baffle Creek bridge upgrade is proceeding, and the Gregory Developmental Road pavement strengthening and widening in a number of sections there is under construction, as well as a number of major culvert upgrades. The inland freight route is obviously a very large multi-year project.
In this session with the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC), I asked questions on the Border-to-Gowrie section of the Inland Rail, a project that continues to look like a horrendous waste of taxpayers’ money.
I asked how much hard-earned taxpayer money has been spent on this 217-kilometre stretch to date and what it will cost before construction even starts. This question was taken on notice. Estimates have been submitted to the federal government, yet the actual cost of building 37 bridges and 3,000 culverts remains up in the air.
We were originally promised a “port-to-port” network from Melbourne to Brisbane. Now, the ARTC admits the actual scope only goes from Beveridge to Kagaru. They’re admitting they cannot get double-stacked, 1.8-kilometre trains into the Brisbane port — and never will. Moving the intermodal terminal to Ebenezer is a flat-out confession of that failure.
They’re stubbornly sticking to a route that goes over a mountain and straight across the Condamine flood plain, which is an engineering nightmare that we’ve warned them about for years. They’re even talking about a “vast new rail tunnel” down the range before they’ve even sorted the basic costs or engineering reality.
I put it to them directly: every single cent being spent on this Queensland route is completely wasted. If you can’t get double-stacked freight to the port, the entire business case goes completely out the window.
While I know the ARTC is just “following orders,” I urge the government to stop throwing good money after bad.
Although they need to finish costing that range tunnel, they must immediately halt the rest and look at alternative routes, such as taking the alignment to the Port of Gladstone, which would actually deliver real logistical and economic benefits for the entire nation.
Once again – this was taken “on notice.”
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight, and have a good evening. My questions are on Inland Rail from the Queensland border to Gowrie specifically. This stage is at phase 4 approval. For 2026, ARTC anticipates increased activity, with teams conducting more site investigations, surveys and updates as they work towards securing final environmental approvals. How much money has been spent on the border-to-Gowrie section to date, and how much is expected to be spent before the first construction begins?
Mr Zambelli: I’d have to take that historical data on notice. At the moment we do have a design team engaged—that’s working on that border-to-Gowrie section to get the next refinement of the design—and we’re out there doing site investigations. I’d have to take on notice the total amount that we’ve spent over many years.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that—and also the cost of the design.
Mr Zambelli: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It appears you’re persevering with a route over a mountain and across the Condamine flood plain, which we’ve talked about many times, to get down to the Brisbane rail network, which will never be able to handle 1.8-kilometre trains or double-stacked trains—never. Why are you persevering with a route that will never get you to port, instead of taking the Inland Rail alignment to the port of Gladstone? There are many logistical benefits for the whole nation.
Mr Zambelli: The scope of Inland Rail is to go to Kagaru, not to Brisbane port, with double-stacked trains to Ebenezer and single-stacked trains to Kagaru. That is the scope. Inland Rail does not go to Brisbane port.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but we were originally told it was port to port—Melbourne to Brisbane. That’s what we were originally told was the vision for Inland Rail. It’s not going to do it. It can go to the port of Gladstone.
Mr Zambelli: I’m just telling you the scope, Senator. Inland Rail is Beveridge to Kagaru.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. You’ve got to follow orders. The border-to-Gowrie section is 217 kilometres of mostly new track, 37 bridges and 3,000 culverts. How much will this cost?
Mr Zambelli: The cost of that section is still being determined. We’ve provided some scope and design, schedule and cost estimates to the federal government, and that’s a matter for the federal government and their assurance verification specialist that’s working with them.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s horrendous. There’s Gowrie to Helidon, including a ‘vast new rail tunnel’—they’re Inland Rail’s words. Surely, taking Inland Rail to Toowoomba shouldn’t be considered until you sort the cost and engineering for taking it down the range. I put it to you that every cent you’re spending on the Queensland route is completely wasted. If you can’t get double-stacked freight to Brisbane, the whole business case is out the window, and your recent update about moving the intermodal from Kagaru to Ebenezer acknowledges you can’t get double-stacked trains to Brisbane itself, which you’ve admitted. Would you please continue work on costing the tunnel down the range but otherwise spend your time, Minister, revisiting alternative routes for Inland Rail? There are so many other fine options that will benefit the country.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice, Senator Roberts.
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?
The Government is currently spending what will likely amount to $20 billion building and upgrading the Inland Rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane. However, Brisbane is constrained. Its ability to handle additional container traffic is very limited, and the railway connection from Toowoomba to Brisbane is almost at capacity. Widening the line is not possible.
For this reason, One Nation supports extending Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, which has the space to expand to become Australia’s main container Port. This would reduce import and export times and lower the cost per container, ultimately reducing prices for consumers.
I asked the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) where they were with this connection. The answer was – nowhere! How can we grow the economy and provide for the millions of new arrivals the Albanese Government is allowing in without a corresponding increase in our productive capacity?
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The current planning for Inland Rail includes consideration of a connection to the Port of Gladstone. Where are we up to on that?
Mr W Johnson: I think I updated you last time that there were some interested parties, in terms of the Port of Gladstone, in connectivity to Inland Rail and the alignment of Inland Rail as it is. GreenLink, in particular, is the organisation that ARTC continue to have some interaction with. They’re progressing through what design operations and/or funding could look like for that in the future. We remain engaged with GreenLink, as ARTC. Inland Rail remain focused on delivering the project to Parkes, as it is today approved, and the enabling works north of Parkes. They’re not focused around any connection, at this point, with GreenLink. That’s what ARTC has been working with.
Senator ROBERTS:Regarding GreenLink, do they have the finance?
Mr W Johnson: I’m not sure of the exact status. I’d have to take that on notice, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Do they also have the intellectual property, the property feasibility study?
Mr W Johnson: My understanding is they’re working on both concept designs as well as funding programs, and they’re well advanced in those endeavours.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?
Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The Port of Gladstone currently does not have a major container-handing function. An application to build one has been delayed for 11 years. What steps have you taken to ensure the Gladstone port is capable of accepting container traffic when the connection is completed? For clarity, it makes no sense to connect Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone if the port can’t handle container traffic.
Mr W Johnson: There’s no work from ourselves in terms of the Port of Gladstone.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, just as an aside, the Port of Gladstone could be a development of major national significance, with regard to container terminals. Why is there a delay on that?
Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I’m deeply concerned with the delay, mainly, in the connection and the approval of Gladstone—the processing for a container-handling application. Going back to the ARTC, if the connection is not built, the Port of Brisbane becomes a primary container port. On notice, can you provide the data you have on the remaining rail spots to bring container trains to the Port of Brisbane, the capacity of the port and the expected volume of container traffic Inland Rail would generate from import and export traffic for the Port of Brisbane.
Mr W Johnson: Sorry, I’d have to take the details of container movements on notice; I’m happy to do so. We continue some interaction and engagement with the Port of Brisbane around what connectivity would look like in the future, but there are a significant number of products that are domestic bound from both North Queensland and also southern states into Queensland. That is the purpose of the connectivity of the existing and the future inland rail.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, going back to the previous question, is there any way you can get onto the Gladstone Ports Corporation and ask them to resolve the application immediately?
Senator McCarthy: I’d have to take that question on notice.
We need One Nation’s national-interest-first policies that will:
✔️ restore and protect Aussie industries
✔️ fix energy
✔️ cut immigration
✔️ restore sovereignty
Thanks for having me on your radio show Jason @2GB873
Transcript
Jason Morrison: There’s a lot of talk about Donald Trump, but there is actual stuff going on today with respect to tariffs. There’s a whole batch of countries that have had letters sent to them from the US government in the most bizarre manner on Truth Social, signed letters from President Trump saying, “Dear Japan, Dear South Korea, Dear Malaysia, Dear Kazakhstan, Dear South Africa, Dear Laos” – informing their leaders of the tariff situation and what will be imposed on them. Japan, Korea, 25% tariff to the US. The other nations – Malaysia, South Africa, Myanmar, Laos – they’re at 40%. You could go through the list. Now we haven’t got ours yet. And perhaps we could be given an extension because we still haven’t had a conversation with the guy. Right?
So maybe, just maybe, we might get it but there is a chance that we may get a letter too telling us what the outcome will be. So, when you think about it, this puts at risk our food industry exports, our mining industry exports, our gas and you think – put all those together, there’s really, I mean Queensland is the home of gas, of coal, of food. There’s a lot on the line for the state of Queensland, but a lot online for all of us here with this.
So, I thought I would just dip into Queensland for a second and talk about what the impact of this will be if this goes the way we fear it will go for Australia.
Malcolm Roberts is Senator for QLD – One Nation and One Nation has got, you know, they’re heading towards as many senators in the parliament as the National Party. So their view on this matters. I thought I’d talk to him. Malcolm Roberts, gidday.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Gidday. What do you mean dipping into Queensland? Is it just before the State of Origin, Jason?
Jason Morrison: Just before it, yeah. Just a little trip up north. I must say …
Malcolm ROBERTS: You’re not playing psychological games on us, are you?
Jason Morrison: I’ll tell you, we’ll try anything, anything at all. But you’ve got to think about it. Food exports, huge Queensland. Coal, huge Queensland. Gas, huge Queensland. It all happens in Queensland. And unfortunately NSW has made itself the recipient state, because if it wasn’t for you blokrd generating all the power, we wouldn’t have enough here too. Now that’s got nothing to do with tariffs, but it does show that these economies are fragile, and tariffs could do something.
Malcolm ROBERTS: I’m glad you mentioned energy actually. It’s not a distraction at all, Jason – it’s fundamental to a modern economy and modern civilization. And when we’re destroying our electricity grid, as we are across the whole of the East Coast of Australia, you know, SA, Victoria, NSW and Queensland, we are making ourselves into a very precarious position. But there is something else that needs to be added. Queensland has the potential for enormous exports of rare earths in minerals from northwestern QLD – there’s a whole area there still to be opened up and our state government for decades now have neglected the northwest. But we have got the potential for really putting Australia on the map when it comes to rare earth metals.
Jason Morrison: I should point out, Malcolm is (was) a mining engineer and I guess you never stop being a mining engineer and thank goodness he understands it because very few in parliament do, but what would be the impact of these US tariffs on the Australian mining industry, which powers this country?
Malcolm ROBERTS: I don’t know enough about the actual details of what they’re what tariffs are putting on, but I think Trump has shown throughout his life that he’s a negotiator. He throws the cards up in the air, catches everyone off guard and then jumps in when he’s picking up the cards. So I don’t know what he’s got in mind, but he has shown signals with other countries that he’s after rare earth metals for America to compete in the modern age. So there’s a huge opportunity for us there. But you know what’s really – what this is really is a wake up call. We haven’t been given a letter. We’ve just been assumed that we’re going to be treated like we’re still at 10%. But they are part of Trump’s agenda to put America first. And that’s something that our country needs to start doing. Under Liberal and Labor, for decades, we have not put Australia first. We’ve sold out on free trade agreements. We’ve sold out our manufacturing with the Lima Declaration in 1975, which the Labor Party signed and the Liberal Party ratified the following year in 76. So what we’ve got to do is take a lead from Donald Trump and start putting Australia first.
Jason Morrison: So let me turn that around. Would you support Australia having a tariff attitude?
Malcolm ROBERTS: I think we have – yes, I would.
Jason Morrison: So let’s put this practically speaking. So we could have maybe protected the Australian car industry from where it is now, which is almost non-existent. I mean we make buses and caravans here, we don’t make cars here, we could have actually kept one going?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. We do need to consider – you know Whitlam signed the Lima Declaration which basically transferred our manufacturing to China and other Asian countries. That was done deliberately under the UN Lima Declaration in 1975. The Liberals have ratified that in 76 and have perpetuated it. Manufacturing has been shot. It’s not only tariffs that have caused the problem. The number one cost component in manufacturing, Jason, is not labour anymore, it’s not wages. It’s electricity by far and what we’ve done in this country with putting up UN policies, Net-Zero Paris Agreement etc, we are destroying our electricity sector. We’ve now got – we’ve gone from being the cheapest power in the world to amongst the most expensive. All due to the UN policies. And that is destroying our manufacturing. What we’re doing is we’re subsidising with our taxes and with electricity prices, the Chinese to build subsidised solar and wind complexes in this country. And we’re subsidising the Chinese to do it and to run it. And we’re then sending our manufacturing jobs to China.
Jason Morrison: It’s a really interesting point. I think people do forget that often. We think because this is an expensive country, our labour’s expensive versus the rest of the world, we pay big money per hour for people working manufacturing versus what other nations do, but they’re not dumb enough to put their power through the roof. Son we’ve done both.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. And it’s not just power – power on manufacturers, on employers and businesses, it’s the higher cost of living due to failed energy policies. The rampant inhuman – I would call it inhuman – excessive immigration in this country, which is shooting house prices through the roof, making it unaffordable. People in – we’re really screwing the lives of people in their 20’s, the young adults, the future leaders of this country, future citizens of this country are being jacked off because they’re just facing HUGE cost increases. And electricity is a critical component in every part of our economy. And then we’ve got COVID fraud and mismanagement, which led to Pfizer and Moderna getting $18 billion in wealth transfers.
Jason Morrison: Oh, gosh, we don’t have enough time to do that. But yeah, you’re right.
Malcolm ROBERTS: But we have looked after foreign corporations, Jason.
Jason Morrison: Over the top.
Malcolm ROBERTS: That’s just one example.
Jason Morrison: Yeah, and you know, I always think about it because people always – people in their 20’s – I have kids that are in their – 13, 11 and 9, they don’t have a vote, they don’t have a say. And yet the decisions being made today are going to be decisions that they will pay for. And the kids of today are being punished by the stupidity and ignorance of so many people that are electing clowns to high office. And we’re getting basically – we’re not paying for it because they’ll be the ones that end up paying for it.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. You hit the nail on the head and the reason is because, you know, our constitution is the only constitution in the world in which the people got a vote on the constitution before it was introduced. The only one! And that the constitution puts the people at the top of the sovereignty arrangements in this country. And yet what we’re doing – what we’re seeing in this country for decades under Labor and Liberal is people serving the government. It should be the government serving the people. Put Australia’s interests first. We need to be working to restore independence and that means freeing up electricity, stopping immigration at the moment and until we catch up with infrastructure and housing and until we can start to understand what’s really going on.
Jason Morrison: Yeah, hear, hear! I mean, you know there will be people listening – “listen to this radical stuff being spoken” – never a truer thing has been said. That is it! Good on you.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Our Prime Minister has met with XI Ji Jingping four times. Why so much effort into China? I know they’re a big trading partner, but why so much effort into China? What about the rest of the countries in the world, including America?
Jason Morrison: Yeah. That’s so true. Good on you. Nice talking to you, Malcolm. Thank you.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Thank you, Jason.
Jason Morrison: That’s Senator Malcolm Roberts from One Nation, who is a smart man and he’s one of these fellows when he speaks, it’s worth listening to what he’s got to say. Doesn’t just shoot from hip – you can tell he reads a lot and knows a lot. I think what we are seeing at the moment is just – it’s like they’ve pushed levers wrongly. They’re pushing up wages, pushing up power and they’re just making everything in Australia uncompetitive at the moment, including living here. It’s just you can’t help but think there must be somebody behind them pushing the levers for them because it’s just so dumb. And surely if you’re smart enough to get elected, you’re smart enough to know these are not smart.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Q9GUgh0qurY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-10 11:52:012025-07-10 11:52:10US Tariffs Could Hit Queensland Hard
Politicians get told not to react like this on live media …
When a member of my team slipped a note across the desk while I was on a podcast, I just couldn’t contain my excitement.
The news was that One Nation had been declared the winner of a Senate seat for New South Wales, confirming we had doubled our representation from just Pauline Hanson and I to four senators including WA.
This was my reaction as I found out for the very first time.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/bIwIZBUSshE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-06-26 15:00:002025-06-26 17:35:53I Found Out We Won—on Air!
Join Us for a Special Event at the Club Hotel – Bundaberg!
We’ve teamed up with the Club Hotel to highlight the Federal Government’s outrageous excise on alcohol. To support Tyler’s campaign, the Club Hotel will be selling Great Northern schooners tax free this Friday from 5pm – 6pm.
While enjoying your tax free schooner, discover One Nation’s plan to ‘put more money back in your pocket’.
Bring your friends, enjoy a cold one, and make your voice heard!
If you haven’t voted yet, save paper and get your One Nation ‘how to vote’ suggestions straight to your email or phone.
Copy the link to your browser or open the link: 
Type in your address or select your electorate if known.
Find Locations | Your ‘how to vote’ will appear on the screen, along with pre-poll and election day voting centres.
Type in your first name and email address or mobile phone number.
The ‘how to vote’ will be sent to you exactly as you would receive it at polling booths.
Mark One Nation as #1
