Posts

Empty Towns, Full Bird Nests: Labor’s Priority

,

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

Here is where we stand:

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

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

This is the part that should really worry every Australian.

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

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

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

All Pain, No Clear Gain!

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: You have affected the market though. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?  

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

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

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

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

CHAIR: Okay.  

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

Senator Watt: What will it be used for?  

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

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

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

/0 Comments/by

One Nation Calls for Inquiry into Hells Gates Dam Cancellation

,

In the North Queensland floods, three Sydney Harbours a day of fresh water flowed out of the Burdekin River into the sea. The government cancelled the Hells Gates Dam on the Burdekin River only two years ago.

How many more houses are going to flood in the future because of this cancellation? How many families will have to leave their town or go thirsty because not enough dams have been built to get us through the droughts.

One Nation says bugger the UN who says we shouldn’t build dams – droughtproof and floodproof as much of the country as possible, and stop that liquid gold uselessly flowing out to the ocean.

Transcript

One Nation is proposing an inquiry into the cancellation of Hells Gates Dam west of Townsville, which this Labor government cancelled for reasons that are still secret today. Some in the Canberra bubble might not be aware that North Queensland is currently very wet. It’s underwater. Hells Gates Dam was proposed on the Burdekin River north of Charters Towers and west of Townsville. Right now, downriver of the Hells Gates proposal, the Burdekin Falls Dam is at 217 per cent capacity, or three times what it’s designed to hold. Right now, a torrent of water is flowing over its spillway. Right now, just under 1,600,000 megalitres is overflowing out of the dam and straight into the ocean. Do you want to know how much is a megalitre? It’s one million litres. That’s 1,500,000 megalitres of rain and water flowing into the ocean. That’s 1,600 gigalitres. This is a lot of water. Using a common cliche, that’s the equivalent of three Sydney Harbours flowing over the dam wall into the ocean every day. Before all the climate scaremongers start to call this unprecedented and blame it all on cow farts, let’s be clear: this is not unprecedented. It’s happened many times before and has been worse. The dam still hasn’t broken its record set in 1991. The Burdekin is seemingly receding after thankfully failing to hit the peak levels recorded in 2009, 1998, 1991 and in many more years in the hundreds before those records began. This is common. 

What’s unprecedented, though, is this government’s incompetence in cancelling the Hells Gates Dam—one of the first things it did. Despite the claim of the former climate chief, Tim Flannery, in 2005 that drought conditions would become permanent in Eastern Australia and that ‘the rain that comes won’t fill our dams because of climate change caused by man’s use of hydrocarbon fuels’. Australia continues to be a country of flooding rains. Inevitably, in the iconic Australian cycle of droughts and floods, another drought will come. That’s why we build dams. At least, any responsible government who takes their duty to Australia seriously would build dams. The Greens have stopped that, and you’re afraid to counter them. There will come a season, and Australians will think with envy about the time when an equivalent of three Sydney Harbours flowed out to sea every day from that river, the Burdekin. Those people will condemn the politicians of today, who have done nothing to try to capture a bit more of that liquid gold called water. 

We know flooding rains will come again. We know seasons of drought will come again. Why is this government failing to build dams that would help us get through both droughts and floods and help us protect people? We seem to be forgetting that. In cancelling Hells Gates Dam, how many North Queensland homes and farms has the Albanese government condemned to flooding in the future? Every decade, there are fewer. How much blame does the coalition take for failing to start a single nation-building dam in their 10 years of government before Labor? Under the supercharged immigration policy being inflicted on the country, Australia will need much more water. Then I think of the rich farmlands that are potential irrigation areas that can be used and developed. That’s why water is like liquid gold to our agricultural sector. When the next drought comes, our existing water reserves will be sucked dry far more quickly because no government has built water storage to keep up with the massively increased population. Mark my words: the next drought will be a man made disaster. It will be the fault of more than a decade of politicians who were scared of the woke foreign organisations that told them not to build dams. Many politicians seem more scared of being called unpopular than of their grandchildren dying of thirst. 

That’s why we need this inquiry—to get to the bottom of why Labor killed the Hells Gates Dam. The Labor Party has given no compelling justification—none—to the people of North Queensland, Queensland or Australia. It’s the Australian economy that will be affected. All that Labor is saying is: ‘It’s gone. Good luck in the next flood and the next drought.’ What happened in the department? What happened in the minister’s office? What possible reason was there for ditching such an important piece of infrastructure for an area that receives so much rain so often? This is what I hope an inquiry would be able to peek behind the curtain on. We would send a strong message that potentially life-saving infrastructure cannot just be subject to government whim without a proper explanation. Lives are at stake. Livelihoods are at stake. A whole region is at stake. A whole state is at stake. 

The people of North Queensland deserve better. The people of Queensland and Australia deserve better. As a servant to the people, One Nation will continue to push for Australia to exit the worldwide organisations that try to dictate that we can’t build life-saving infrastructure, like dams. To protect people from floods, droughts and famines, One Nation will continue to push for work for dams that capture our flooding rains and sustain us through the precedented droughts to come. With our plentiful resources, Australia could be unbeaten on the world stage, but we can only make a start on more productively using our resources for the people’s wealth once our life source, water, is secured for future generations. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hughes): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, on a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Hells Gate Dam, be agreed to. Since we’re past 6.30 pm, a division will have to be rolled over to tomorrow. 

/1 Comment/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

Water is Crucial for Snowy 2.0

,

Hydropower comes from flowing water and for that you need the key ingredient — water. While Snowy 2 will pump water up and then generate electricity by letting it flow down, its’ water needs are much more than just re-using the same water.

Snowy 2’s profitability depends on keeping water in storage to provide immediate baseload power when the unreliables in the grid go down from inclement weather. What we do know is there’s definitely no water in the high mountains as an insurance policy essential for underwriting the unreliable solar and wind power generation.

All the water in Tantangarra is needed for environmental flows into the upper Murrumbidgee. Water taken from the lower dam, Talbingo, is water owned by other users.

I would have thought a $12 billion scheme that uses water for electricity generation would have already sorted out where that water is coming from, but apparently not! I put questions to the department around water availability, water licences, and agreements. I also asked whether Snowy Hydro has sufficient water allocated to meet its agreed insurance policy against the shortfalls of wind and solar.

The responses suggest the disaster movie that is Snowy 2.0 is still playing Act 1.0.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I want to reference the Snowy Montane Rivers Increased Flows: Safety Management Plan 2022-2027. The plan calls for increased flows into the upper Murrumbidgee in a series of high-flow releases from Tantangara Dam. Page 37 is headed ‘Key issues/considerations’. The very first one refers to an increase of 40,755 megalitres to be released into Snowy montane rivers from Tantangara reservoir. This is an increase of 35,800 megalitres from the 2022-23 water year. Is that correct?

Ms Connell: I don’t have that document in front of me. We can take it on notice to look at that. Given conditions over the last couple of years, I wouldn’t be surprised if there had been an increase from 2021-22 to 2022-23. I would need to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems to be to repair or restore the Murrumbidgee. I am not arguing that case.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think you’ve heard the official say that she doesn’t have the document in front of her.

Senator ROBERTS: I will get it on notice.

Senator McAllister: If you did want to ask further questions about that, presumably we can find it. Providing the reference would assist us to do so.

Senator ROBERTS: It is by the New South Wales government. You can have this, if you like.

CHAIR: Maybe table it, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Tantangara storage holds 250 gigalitres. However, Tantangara reservoir has never been more than 70 per cent full in the 23 years to December 2020. This means there has never been water available to generate 350 gigawatt hours of electrical energy. In addition, the long-term average weekly volume of the Tantangara reservoir in the same 23 years is 18.15 per cent, which allows only 32 gigalitres to be used for generation. The long-term average storage available in Talbingo is found to be approximately 33 gigalitres. These new high-surge flows, plus the existing daily water inflow into the upper Murrumbidgee, will account for 100 per cent of the water storage in Tantangara, based on the last 23 years of inflows. There’s no water in Tantangara for Snowy 2.0. Is this correct?

Mr Fredericks: Senator, in fairness to you, the questions that you are asking are really about the business of Snowy Hydro Ltd. I suspect they will be able to give you a high-quality answer to your question. If it is okay, I will take that on notice for them to come back on notice and respond to it.

Senator ROBERTS: I would like you to answer it.

Mr Fredericks: I can’t answer it. I will take it on notice.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the officials from the department will answer what they can. In directing your questions, if the questions are about the operation of Snowy, they need to go to Snowy.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

CHAIR: The department can help you, via the interface they have there.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, Chair, very clearly.

Senator DAVEY: To be fair, I was at the Snowy hearing. Senator Roberts did ask these questions of Snowy, and Snowy were a bit ambivalent and suggested that he ask the department.

CHAIR: Put them on notice to both sets and then, through the committee, we’ll deal with whether the response covers your questions.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know because Snowy Hydro 2.0 said, ‘There’s plenty of water in Tantangara.’ Clearly, there is not.

Mr Fredericks: I will take that on notice for Snowy Hydro.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I would like you to answer the question about the availability of water. This is crucial.

Mr Fredericks: That is fair enough. I will take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: The water in Tantangara cannot be used for hydro via the existing connection to Lake Eucumbene, which flows into the Murray, or the new Snowy 2.0 connection, which flows into the Tumut and then the lower Murrumbidgee. This means that all the water for Snowy 2.0 will have to be pumped up from Talbingo before coming down. That’s not a problem. We understand that, because with pumped hydro you either start with the water at the bottom or you start with the water at the top and you end up in the same place. My critical question is about the availability of water. Here is the second question. Snowy 2.0 is making one-third of its revenue from selling insurance policies to underwrite the lack of continuity of supply of unreliable wind and solar as generators. The basic idea is that if an unreliable renewable project, like solar and wind, can’t supply its contracted power then Snowy will let the water flow down the hill and generate power for them. One-third of the revenue of Snowy 2.0 comes from insurance, we were told.

That suggests the water must be available in Tantangara year round to provide for immediate electricity dispatch. We’re talking about critical peak hour generation. The water in Tantangara is fully allocated, so water will have to be pumped up the hill and stored against future needs, under these insurance contracts. Some of that will be lost in seepage and evaporation—quite a lot. How has that been dealt with in Snowy Hydro’s water licence? Does Snowy Hydro have a water licence?

Mr Fredericks: I’ll need to take that on notice. In deference to you, I’ll take it on notice for Snowy and for the department as well.

Senator ROBERTS: I would like an answer from your department in particular. We can get it from Snowy. Do they have water agreements?

Mr Fredericks: On notice.

Senator ROBERTS: If they do have any water agreements, are they sufficient to match the insurance policy that Snowy Hydro is going to be getting one-third of its revenue from?

Mr Fredericks: On notice for both—Snowy Hydro and us.

Senator ROBERTS: This deals with water in the high mountains. Thank you very much.

Mr Fredericks: You’re welcome.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Davey.

/by

Murray Darling Farmers Fightback

It’s official! One Nation, the Liberals, Labor and Nationals agree water buybacks will force more farmers out of business and permanently drive up the price of fresh food.

Talk of buybacks being needed for river health are quite simply rubbish. Australia’s river ecology has evolved over millennia to live happily through periods of flood and drought. The problem with the river now is too much water producing local flooding, eroding the river banks and producing standing “blackwater” in national parks along the river.

Australia does not need more environmental water in the hands of inner city ideologues. We need irrigation water in the hands of farmers to keep food on the table for the 2.3 million new arrivals this government is letting in.

I applaud the honesty and decency of the Victorian Government and Water Minister Shing on this issue. Congratulations also to One Nation’s MLC for Northern Victoria, Rikkie-Lee Tyrell, who has campaigned on this issue for years, with success.

/5 Comments/by

Farmers and Regional Towns are struggling

, , ,

With water availability, labour prices and government all against the farmer, it is too hard for smaller farms to survive and even the large farms are struggling.

If our farms fallover, regional towns will quickly follow and then the rest of the country will be in big trouble. Governments at every level need to help our regions be building cheap, reliable electricity and secure supplies of water.

Decades of government dropping the ball on these issues has left us in a scary position. I talk about this in my new segment, Our Nation Today, with farmer Trevor Cross and Mike Ryan.

Let me know what you think.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Regional Queensland literally feeds and clothes us, Yet so many short-sighted government policy decisions will hit these regions first and hit the regions hardest. Travelling around Queensland, I’m constantly reminded that the one-size-fits-all policies just don’t meet the needs of rural and regional centres. We’re talking about the fundamentals that urban areas take for granted. Affordable, secure, and reliable water, energy, and food. Reasonable insurance premiums and freight rates, roads, and rail fit for purpose. Access to health and education that gives people the confidence to settle in the regions. There’s nothing more fundamental than food.

A prosperous agricultural sector is essential for supplying Australia’s food needs and the needs of the rest of the world. In the financial year 2021, the gross value of agricultural production is estimated at $66 billion, a staggering figure. And it’s easy to forget that being a farmer is a tough gig because even in good years it’s 24/7 and the balancing acts of risks within a farmer’s control, and those beyond never stops. There’s been a lot of talk about an agriculture-led recovery after the COVID restrictions that smashed our economy and the need for confidence to pick up the pieces and to keep going. Many in our farming community have sustained shattering losses with ready to pick food being ploughed back in and a major reduction in the planting of next year’s crop, simply due to worker shortages.

I see a role for government in creating the right environment for businesses to flourish. Part of that is to help mitigate unnecessary risks, such as having strategically placed dams and a well-connected water infrastructure grid which should have happened years ago. So instead of the Queensland government spending $10 million to cart water for Stanthorpe when the town ran out, it would have been better spent on a longer term solution such as more town weirs to hold more water. We know that our water reserves and existing dams are not keeping up with population growth. Government should aim to minimise its unnecessary intrusions and yet any farmer will tell you that excessive regulations such as the reef regulations and vegetation management laws create an impossible business environment for farmers.

Layer upon layer upon layer of stupid and destructive rules and regulation leaves the farmer with ever-decreasing profits. And yet we expect farmers to just saddle up and continue to make it work. Today Mike Ryan talks with Trevor Cross, a successful Queensland horticultural grower based in Bundaberg. I first met Trevor in 2017 at his farm and was impressed with his passion for farming, his business savvy and the hard work that he and his team do everyday to put many veggies such as tomatoes, capsicums and zucchinis into our supermarkets.

[Mike Ryan] Trevor, thanks for joining us.

[Trevor Cross] Thanks Mike, good to meet you.

[Mike Ryan] Now, tell us about your farming business, the size of your holdings, where you’re located, what you grow and what you export.

[Trevor Cross] We’re in Bundaberg in Queensland, we farm about two and a half thousand acres of small crops. So we grow tomatoes, gourmet roma’s and cherry tomato. And then zucchinis, capsicums, chilies, melon, pumpkin, a few cucumber, snow peas, and sugar snaps, and just a few beans, so we spread that over about a nine-month period in the Bundaberg region. So most of our stuff actually goes Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne a little bit to Adelaide. And this year in New Zealand, it’ll open its exports again, it’s been out for 12 months with this virus. So it’s supposed to open up again this year, so hopefully that’ll be good for the industry.

[Mike Ryan] I can really empathise with what you do. I mean, my dad will probably kill me for this being from the land. I recall he actually decided to go into rockies and do rock melons and large acreage. Anyway, the bottom fell out of the market. And I recall he got a cheque from the bank for, I think it would have been something like sixpence in those days. And I’m thinking, why would you ever want to do this? And then he decided to go into avocados and citrus and stuff. And that’s just as terrifying. It’s a really hard business, isn’t it?

[Trevor Cross] Yeah. The biggest problem with farming it’s actually almost like an addiction. You go out and start growing something, it’s very, very hard to stop it. It’s not so much about money, I don’t think, when you’re a farmer. It’s about just seeing a crop planted, seeing the crop grow and getting it picked. But the biggest problem is there needs to be some rewards on the way through.

[Mike Ryan] What’s the greatest challenge, say, to business such as yours on the land?

[Trevor Cross] In our industry it’s, because it’s a high-labor industry, it’s probably, at the moment, getting enough people to actually harvest crops. Because when we’re in peak-season we have about 350 people here, so… And there is going to be a shortage. I’m not quite sure how far we’ll be down, whether it’s going to be 10- or 20-percent down. So that’s probably one of the hardest parts. Water supply’s another major component to our operation, and just general costing. The costs keep going up and up and up and the end prices doesn’t really reflect what it’s costing to do business, anymore.

[Mike Ryan] So you have two and a half thousand acres, which is a very large, large piece of land. Do you think the days of the smaller farmer, for example, 20 or 30 acres are gone, and that you need to have, just to accommodate your cost and make sure you get a decent return, that you’ve got to have a large business instead of those, not micro, but the smaller businesses used to be.

[Trevor Cross] It’s volume now, whereas before it was just a family, a family could actually survive on a hundred acres and live fairly comfortable, now a hundred acres unless you’re doing really niche market product, you would never, ever survive. So everything’s been turned into bigger farms. We’d be one of the largest, freehold personal farms in town now, there’s probably a couple other families about our size that are just doing it, and the rest is a lot of consolidated money from investment companies, and they’re now are doing nut trees, mainly.

[Mike Ryan] What’s greatest impact on your business when it comes to costs? Which ones are the ones that stand out? Is it labour?

[Trevor Cross] Yeah, Labour used to run about 33- to 35-percent we’d work on for labour, and the way it’s going, last year I think hit early forties, about 42-, 44-percent, and this year, unless there’s a big market change I think it’ll go 50%.

[Mike Ryan] Wow. That’s incredible, isn’t it? How do you survive?

[Trevor Cross] Well, I just hope that there’s actually money paid at the other end. At the point of sale, at the first point of sale at the marketplace, most stuff is fairly cheap. At the last point of sale, it could be three… between two and four times what it’s paid for. So, that’s what the average customer doesn’t think, They think if it’s dearer in the shop, the farmer’s making the money.

[Mike Ryan] I was talking to Senator Malcolm Roberts, and he was saying, just talking about how the consumer in the major metropolitan areas, they all think that the produce that they see almost is manufactured in the supermarket, but, you know, prior to that, you’ve got so many factors. I mean, from the farmer to the chain. Farmer, to the, what do you call it?

The grower. Not grower, the buyer who buys up for the land and then they on-sell it to someone else. And then it’s sold to the supermarket. You think from the farmer to the actual supermarket, ’cause my dad used to always say, he would love to be able to take out a shotgun with some pellets and get rid of those middlemen. Is it still the same headache and pain in the backside?

[Trevor Cross] The biggest problem is with the whole system, if you actually get out of the place what’s supposed to set the right price how do we know what the right price is? And I think the days when people were actually stealing at the first point of sale, I don’t think it’s there anymore because everyone’s fighting for a dollar. So they’re getting screwed down more and more. All the grower actually needs is probably about 20- 30-cents a kilo more and they become very sustainable. And that’s not a lot.

It’s only 2 to 3 dollars a box on average, and everyone’s paying bills, because the Ag industry, and this is not just what we do, It’s every Ag industry, there’s a lot of people get employed before it even gets to the farm. And then after it leaves the farm there’s a lot of people employed from transport, through to your retailers, your wholesalers, and then the processors… there’s many, many people relying on the farming industry.

[Mike Ryan]What are your thoughts of the future of farming, say, in Australia?

[Trevor Cross] Well, I know if we keep going down this track we can’t last much longer. Even our business now we’ve actually got 400 acres of nut trees, and we’ll probably continue to change over just because of the labour price and for our small profits we’re making out of employing all the people, we may as well not have them. We may as well just go to where it’s all mechanical.

So, I don’t know if my boys will actually take over and do what I do, ’cause it’s a seven-day-a-week job. You’ve got to be in amongst the people and see what’s happening. I actually think, even in this area around Bundaberg, there won’t be too much of this industry left within probably four or five years. I think the majors will be all gone.

[Mike Ryan] That’s just terrible, too, because once you have less growers like yourself then you’ve got this monopoly and the monopolies are not what we want. I mean, look at the US and you’ve got these multi-billion-dollar corporations that control the price of produce, although you go to a supermarket and they do the same thing there too, they screw down the grower, although the grower being a lot bigger than what they’ve dealt with, they’ve got their sort of, at least it’s coming up to almost 50-50 between the grower and the actual supermarket chain.

It’s a really, really tough life. What do you think is the most important thing in keeping our farming sector successful and growing? What do we actually need to do besides revise wages, for example, on the land. You can’t keep paying out 50%. You’re going to make no money.

[Trevor Cross] Yeah. Everyone’s entitled to money, Mike. The wage earner is entitled to money, and they all want to lead a good life, but we’ve just got to get a share of that sale price at the end. Basically, I think all growers need just a little bit more money, and it’s not a lot, a couple dollars a box, as I say, it’s not a lot of money. And then everyone’s happy because I don’t think any man who’s been on the land for all his life deserves to actually have the bank come and sell him up, because of the poor market prices. I think everyone can work together.

If capsicums or zucchinis or whatever, ’cause we’re only seasonal, we do about eight months a year in Bundaberg, and then the South is just finishing up now, they would have had the most horrible year in their life. And people have been on the land all their life and next minute they gotta sell their farms because of poor prices. It’s only a couple of dollars a box, they wouldn’t have needed much more and they’d be still viable.

[Mike Ryan] So what do you do, though? If you weren’t on the land, what would you do?

[Trevor Cross] I don’t really know what I would actually do cause I’m not much into fishing, I don’t like doing anything else. And so that’s what I call it, a hobby.

[Mike Ryan] An expensive hobby though, isn’t it?

[Trevor Cross] Yeah but most… a lot of farmers grow because they’re addicted to growing. That’s what they’ve been bred to do. They grow. And they show up nearly every day. So it’s a challenge because you’re challenged against the weather, challenged against people and you become a plumber an accountant, you know, almost doctor, sometimes. So there’s nothing you can’t actually do. A good farmer can do just about anything there is to do.

[Mike Ryan] If somebody was wanting to find out more about what you do, do you actually have a website we could go to and have a look, just to get an idea and appreciation what it’s all about.

[Trevor Cross] No, I would say I keep pretty well under cover but we could actually have a bit of a look at doing something if there’s people interested and actually do something.

[Mike Ryan] Yeah. We must do that. I’m sure you’ll handle the technology as well as my dad.

[Trevor Cross] I have to get someone to help me, yeah.

[Mike Ryan] Trevor, great chatting with you. All the best. Thanks for giving us your time today, and also say thank you to your wife in the background, she’s done a wonderful job.

[Trevor Cross] No worries. Thanks, Michael.

[Malcolm Roberts] The harsh reality is that we, as a nation, will either flourish or decline with our regional centres and with Australian farmers. Our farmers must make a profit to make their livelihoods sustainable. And that, after all, is where we get our food. Our rural and regional communities have unique challenges and need a different set of solutions to ensure fair and equitable access to basic services and to grow viable communities. Thank you for joining me Senator Malcolm Roberts on Our Nation Today.

/by