Posts

Essential Infrastructure Belongs in Public Hands

,

Infrastructure of national significance such as power transmission lines, substations and water systems should remain in the hands of the government, on behalf of the people, which will prevent corporate monopolies and price gouging. While power generation can be privately owned, it needs long-term supply price controls.

Privatisation of water in South Australia in 1996 failed and was brought back under government control in 2012. Not only was it poorly maintained, water went from being amongst the cheapest to the dearest. Similarly, Western Australia privatised water in 1996 and likewise, was brought back under government control in 2019. The Western Australian government discovered that managing complex private contracts was actually costing more than doing the work themselves. This saved taxpayers $5 million a year.

Rather than learning from the costly mistakes of other states, Victoria is pushing ahead with plans to lease VicWater assets to the highest bidder. The result? Victorians will face higher water bills only to inherit degraded infrastructure when its handed back.

Privatisation leads to monopolies, profit maximisation and price gouging. By contrast, I generally support the free market because it gives consumers choice, driving accountability, efficiency, and productivity.

Given Australia’s small population and vast size, duplicate critical infrastructure cannot exist, meaning private ownership inherently creates unregulated monopolies that maximise profit through gouging.

The Solution? Competitive Federalism. State-owned critical infrastructure avoids private monopolies because it operates within a system of “competitive federalism.” Citizens have freedom of movement between states, creating a “marketplace in governance” where states must remain accountable, efficient, and responsive to citizens, driving positive policy reforms across the country.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I thank Senator McKim for moving this motion, which One Nation supports. It’s One Nation policy that infrastructure of national significance should remain in the hands of the government on behalf of the people—not under government control but on behalf of the people. This includes power transmission lines and substations. Power stations can be privately owned and operated under a long-term supply price, which prevents price gouging in times of power scarcity, which happens all the time with weather-dependent solar and wind power. It’s a travesty that the business model for Snowy 2.0 hydro seeks to justify the $42 billion price tag using a projection for power prices which suggests they too expect a profit from price gouging. AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, is frequently forced to intervene in the market at $600 per megawatt hour, which is a staggeringly high price, because new gas-firming plants are not being required to accept a feed-in tariff. If it existed, it would be $60 to $80 per megawatt hour. Consumers are paying peak pricing which is 10 times the price they would pay if we built our baseload power stations with sensible supply contracts—fact. 

Privatising infrastructure of national significance has failed. South Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2012. This was after the operator failed to maintain a sewage treatment works and Adelaide endured months of what was called the ‘big pong’. Adelaide water went from being amongst our country’s cheapest to our country’s dearest. Western Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2019. The outcome in Western Australia was interesting. Perhaps Premier Carroll could pay attention there. During 25 years, the Western Australian government realised that managing complex private contracts was actually costing more than doing the work themselves. Moving Western Australian water back to government ownership saved taxpayers $5 million a year. Now Victoria is the latest bankrupt state selling off the silverware—VicWater. The plan is called Project Nerva and circumvents the Victorian constitution through leasing the $18 billion in assets of VicWater to the highest bidder. Victorians will pay more for their water and receive back an asset in a worse state than when it was leased. Such is privatisation. It leads to a monopoly, which leads to profit maximisation, which leads to gouging. I generally support the free market because it gives consumers choice, and choice leads to accountability, and choice leads to efficiency and productivity. Given Australia’s small population, though, and huge area, we cannot support two sets of critical infrastructure for roads, water and electricity. We cannot place monopoly power in corporate hands, where profit maximisation is the goal and leads to gouging. 

What of government monopolies? Our forefathers, the founding fathers of our Constitution, thought of that and came up with a solution—actually, they borrowed it from the American constitution. The solution is embedded in our Constitution. States provide infrastructure and critical services. That comes under competitive federalism. One state competes with another state. That’s a marketplace in governance. There is choice. If South Australia is stuffing things up, South Australians can move to New South Wales or Queensland. It doesn’t matter what it is. Whether it’s education, infrastructure, water, electricity, roads—whatever it is, there is no monopoly, because the states have competition under competitive federalism. That provides a marketplace in governance, which leads to choice. If you don’t like the state you’re in, you can move to another state. Freedom of movement leads to accountability. So state ownership of critical infrastructure is part of a marketplace solution. 

There’s not enough time to tell you about Sir Joh, but Sir Joh abolished death duties in Queensland, and people moved to Queensland so that they could leave their children more money. That led to other states doing the same. Warren Buffett, the most successful investor ever, said his ideal investment is the sole drawbridge on a wide river. When you put it in private hands, infrastructure becomes a mechanism for gouging. We must protect national infrastructure and national services like water. They’re key resources.

/0 Comments/by

Where Are the Dams?

,

During recent Estimates hearings, I questioned officials from the National Water Grid (NWG) and Minister Murray Watt on critical water infrastructure and supply issues amid Australia’s surging population and rising demand.

I asked for an update on the Paradise Dam works, noting that the Crisafulli government is still evaluating the business case. I also asked questions regarding the Urannah irrigation project, highlighting that the detailed business case was withdrawn by the proponent and the Queensland government in late 2022.

Citing Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing a 12.9% rise in water demand (including a 6% increase in household water and a 14% jump for food production), I enquired on how the government plans to meet this massive resource pressure. I pointed out that this surge equals the volume of a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months, asking where the infrastructure is to support record immigration levels.

While Minister Watt argued that the federal government funds regional water infrastructure, efficiency programs and buybacks, he maintained that state governments hold primary responsibility for drinking water supply.

I questioned the actual yield of the $210 million WISER program (Water Infrastructure for Sustainable and Efficient Regions) and asked why cancelled initiatives like the Hughenden irrigation project (HIPCo) remain active on the NWG’s website rather than being moved to a history page. These questions were taken on notice.

— May | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: First, could you update us on the Paradise Dam works. When we last spoke, you indicated that the Crisafulli government was still evaluating the business case and had not made a request for funding. Has there been any change to this?  

Mr Southwell: No, we don’t have a business case from the Queensland government. I don’t believe the Queensland government has a business case from Sunwater either.  

Senator ROBERTS: I also asked about the reason the project sponsor had pulled out of what is a project of national significance, the Urannah irrigation project. Mr Darrough took that on notice. It wasn’t, however, placed on notice. I’m trying to understand why the sponsor pulled out before asking the Crisafulli government why they aren’t proceeding with this project. Can you give me a simple rundown, please?  

Mr Darrough: Pardon me, Senator, can you repeat the question about the question on notice. The response was provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Mr Darrough took that on notice’, is what I said.  

Mr Darrough: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: It wasn’t, however, placed on notice.  

Mr Southwell: We did table a response.  

Mr Darrough: The Urannah Water Scheme detailed business case is publicly available on the Queensland government website. I provided a link for that as well. On the environmental impact statement material, the Queensland Office of the Coordinator-General published the terms of reference for the EIS on 31 March 2021, and it records that the EIS process was withdrawn in December 2022. This is a matter between the proponent and the Queensland government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do any of the projects in your project list include recycling sewage and/or grey water and directing the output into drinking water, including into a storage dam from which drinking water is drawn?  

Mr Darrough: I would suggest that the answer is no, but I will take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be particularly interested in South-East Queensland.  

Mr Darrough: I don’t have the—  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m just saying. What is your target for water consumption per person, per day? How much water do you actually have to provide to keep water up to people, stock, station, irrigation, more people, more food and industry. We’ve got record immigration. What’s your target per person, per day?  

Mr Darrough: That’s not a question for National Water Grid.  

Mr Southwell: We don’t have a specific target from the National Water Grid Fund.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, remember that most of the responsibility for providing water, especially drinking water, if that’s your focus, rests with state and local governments. We have a role in funding some of that infrastructure.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just remind you of this from your website: ‘The National Water Grid Investment Framework ensures funding decisions guide long-term, responsible investment in water infrastructure. It also helps the government plan for future challenges, including climate change, population growth and rising demand for water in farming.’ According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, water demand in Australia rose by 12.9 per cent from 2022-23 to 2023-24. A rapidly increasing population creates demand for more household water, up six per cent in that period. Also, from demand for food, water use is up 14 per cent. In actual terms, that represents another 1,965 gigalitres. In one year, that’s a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months. Where are these Warragamba dams coming from? Where are the plans for more water to meet the needs of the last million new arrivals, let alone the one million more due by 2028?  

Senator Watt: I know that it would be your party’s policy to link all of these issues to migration. You just talked about the increasing demand for water for food production. That’s not necessarily about feeding the Australian population. You would remember, I’m sure, that the vast majority of food produced in Australia is exported. The demand for water is also partly about supporting the trade and businesses of farmers who produce the food.  

Senator ROBERTS: Senator, I know you want to weasel out of it, but the fact is that immigration is up, food production is up, for whatever reason.  

Senator Watt: Immigration is actually coming down under our government.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s up compared to three years ago. It’s up compared to five years ago.  

Senator Watt: It’s coming down under our government. I know you don’t accept that, but it’s coming down.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s 750,000 for each of the last three years.  

Senator Watt: That’s not correct. We can produce the figures that show—  

Senator ROBERTS: Three years ago it was 750—  

Senator Watt: This is not really the committee to get into this—  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. Where are the future Warragamba—you’ve got a water crisis cabinet.  

Senator Watt: But net overseas migration is falling.  

Senator HENDERSON: It’s at a record high.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got a water crisis coming; what are you doing about it?  

CHAIR: Senators, I think there’s a bit of talking over each other. We’re getting to the end of the evening. Let’s do this as clinically as possible: question then answer.  

Senator Watt: In general terms, from a federal government perspective, what we are doing to meet the demand for water across the country is helping fund certain infrastructure projects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which ones?  

Senator Watt: The projects that the National Water Grid has funded, which we’ve said we’ll come back to you on notice about. There are many of them. We are encouraging water efficiency and investing in water efficiency, including on farms. We are funding voluntary water buybacks. There are a range of activities that we are funding. But when it comes to restrictions on water consumption, that is generally determined by state and local governments or the owners of that infrastructure.  

Senator ROBERTS: When is the next Warragamba Dam coming? Where is it? We need a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months. Where are they? They’re not there.  

Senator Watt: That would generally be a matter for states.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got your WISER program, water infrastructure for sustainable and efficient regions, which sounds nice. Let’s describe it: plugging leaks, building local pipelines and improving recycling facilities—$210 million in total. How much will this water add up to, from the WISER program? Will it be a Warragamba Dam every 18 months?  

Mr Darrough: I need to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question on this bracket: your website still lists projects that have been killed off by the Albanese government, including the Hughenden irrigation project, HIPCo. Why are cancelled projects not removed or moved to a history page? Is it to give the impression the National Water Grid is actually expanding when it’s not?  

Senator Watt: There were no announcements made about that project in the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: Previously?  

Senator Watt: Not that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you check? Take that on notice?  

Senator Watt: Sure. 

/1 Comment/by

Endless Studies, Zero Dams

, ,

The Urannah Dam project was cancelled by the Albanese Labor government in 2022. I wanted to see the final business case and environmental impact study (EIS) to see what they’re hiding.

The Commonwealth threw $22.65 million into the business case and approvals, then Bowen River Utilities withdrew the scheme from Queensland’s environmental assessment processes in December 2022.

When I asked why it was withdrawn, where the final business case is, and where the EIS is, the department agreed to provide it on notice. They claimed that because of “Commonwealth-state relations,” the ownership of these taxpayer-funded documents rests with the state, though they “encourage” publication. I’ve requested copies if they have access to them.

I asked if the bureaucrats are looking at the bigger picture regarding future water demand in the Burdekin Basin.

There is massive potential in the Great Australian Infrastructure Project, which would see a major steel mill established at Collinsville, along with other mills in Central Queensland. These visionary projects will have a massive appetite for water.

The department representative admitted he only knows about these vital industrial opportunities from reading the newspapers. They did note they are partnering with Queensland on a broader “Burdekin Regional Water Assessment” to look at basin-wide supply and demand, however it’s clear they are disconnected from real-world economic development.

Whether it’s Paradise Dam or Urannah Dam, we are seeing the same pattern: endless assessments, massive cost escalations, secret reports and a total lack of urgency from state and federal governments to actually build the water infrastructure Australia.

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.  

/1 Comment/by

The Battle for Farrer – and Conservatism

,
This is why David Farley must win.

While I am a Queensland Senator, the political battle taking place in Farrer is fascinating.

Usually, a by-election triggered by a resigning party leader is something of a walkover. A safe seat. A perfunctory vote. Little more than a formality and shuffling of candidates into pre-ordained positions of uniparty power.

Farrer is something this country hasn’t seen in a long time.

A battle for conservatism.

With a real choice.

The uniparty stranglehold is weakening, and the people of Farrer have an opportunity to be a part of history.

Former Liberal Leader Sussan Ley hastened the collapse of the Liberal Party, overseeing two Coalition break-ups during her short tenure. These were not minor tiffs. They were ideological breaking points where metropolitan wets came to blows with the regional National Party leadership. The LNP have become a coalition of opposing forces, tearing each other apart and united by little except an ever-decreasing whiff of nostalgia for a Menzies brand that has long since been colonised by One Nation.

How can those at war with each other possibly lead the fight against Labor?

As I say at the beginning of every speech, One Nation are the true opposition.

On the ground in Farrer, you will find very little love for the Liberals or Sussan Ley. Farrer was left unheard during Ley’s extended Listening Tour. On the campaign trail, the message is clear. They want something different. They want real leadership. They want someone who stands for their community on a local level and who is also capable of engaging in critical federal and international conversations that have real-world impacts. A person who knows the economic structure holding up regional Australia and has lived experience to bring to Canberra.

The choice of Raissa Butkowski, a community lawyer and Albury City Councillor, shows the Liberals attempting to replace Ley with something familiar – a foot half-in, half-out of the regional and town voting blocs without ever quite committing to the big issues. This is formulaic from the Liberals, a tad cynical in clinical adherence to sheer numbers, and the lukewarm response in the polls is entirely deserved. The people are not identity blocs to be wooed and enticed. They are a single electorate that deserves coherent and steadfast representation.

Prior polling and previous election results are useless. This is a new world, and Farrer is a fight between One Nation and the Climate-200-backed Independent.

It is a sort-of Litmus test for the future Teal vs Conservative rivalry in the leafy suburbs of Australia’s capital cities where those raised as blue ribbon conservatives have been temporarily captured by the luxury belief in apocalyptic virtue. Are those conservatives starting to wake up? I think so.

The Liberals believe conservatism can be saved from the clutches of Tealism (and its kin) by pretending that standing half-an-inch from Albanese is the ‘sensible centre’. Laughable.

One Nation suspects that what Australians really hunger for is a revival of true conservatism, the type of honest, grassroots adoration for Australia, its people and its assets, which built the country – from convict chains to skyscrapers. People want a break from radical, dangerous politics that ‘progresses’ the country toward the cliff-edge of socialist ruin. Voters are exhausted by virtue-chasing, global salvation narratives, and the burden of taxes that come with it. They don’t want to sleep with one eye open, wondering what their MPs are drafting in Canberra while they rest.

And what does this Independent, Michelle Milthorpe, offer?

No one is really quite sure, and that is the problem.

Who wants a mystery in a time of crisis and uncertainty?

The wishy-washy noncommittal politics of the green-left, Climate 200-funded collective is deliberate. It is convenient to never outright align with damaging climate change policy or Net Zero goals.

We can ask questions and make guesses as to what any future vote from Milthorpe might look like based on who supported her campaign, who she hired to help her (a former Teal campaign manager), and which political activist groups choose to engage with her message (GetUp!).

On that, it has been reported GetUp! raised $400,000 on an ‘anti-Pauline’ campaign for Farrer, with plans to spend over $600,000, which seems an extraordinary amount of money to use bombarding the people of Farrer. One Nation doesn’t drown voters in propaganda. Funds from GetUp!’s 100,000 members is apparently being spent telling the people of Farrer how to vote. How disgusting it is to treat Farrer as though it were a vending machine where, with enough money, the preferred product might fall out the bottom for collection.

We could also note that Ms Milthorpe has been on the campaign trail with independent David Pocock, whose website states his support of accelerating climate action along with a portfolio of fringe climate policies. Just because Ms Milthorpe won’t praise batteries or EVs does not mean she won’t be friendly to climate legislation that punishes reliable energy or farming activities.

It is certainly interesting that Ms Milthorpe has been defensive about those who draw ideological connections between her and the Teals due to Climate 200. Association with the ‘Teals’ used to be considered a vote-winning perk, however, in the regional seat of Farrer, where there are plenty of frustrated farmers who have had enough of Climate Change policy ruining their livelihoods, perhaps we can finally say that the shine is wearing off the climate narrative…

While an Independent can avoid questions about how they might vote on critical legislative issues, such as the future of Australia’s oil reserves, opening new refineries, and creating dubious agricultural trade deals with the European Union, One Nation is proud to declare its positions. Transparency is our duty, not an electoral inconvenience.

One Nation, regardless of whether it is a by-election, state campaign, or federal election, will never hide its position on the issues that matter to voters. We wish to be judged in the light so that our elected representatives can serve their electorates honestly and in good faith.

By-elections should not be a competition between parties to add another seat into their collection as if curating jewels in a crown. This is about good governance for the people who have, for far too long, been treated by major parties and independents as an inconvenience to be overcome on the way to Canberra.

How will Michelle Milthorpe vote on the hundreds of critical bills that will wash through Parliament under Albanese’s watch?

Who knows.

You can look One Nation’s David Farley in the eye and he will give you a direct answer. That is what we stand on as a party.

And so I continue to watch the Farrer by-election with great interest to see if the successes of the South Australian state election will continue over the border in New South Wales.

Are the people ready to rid themselves of damaging Net Zero legislation and the anti-agricultural mindset that has held our regions back? Regional Australians are already fiercely pro-environment, of course they are, they want to protect the land they live in and call home. Most have had enough of being lectured to by faux environmental movements who clog up city streets with their protests while never setting foot on the land. The people of Farrer know where the nation’s food comes from, and they know what must be done to protect the region.

David Farley is a man who will fight for Farrer, in the paddock, on the streets, and in Canberra.

Authorised by Malcolm Roberts, Brisbane.

The battle for Farrer – and conservatism by Senator Malcolm Roberts

This is why David Farley must win.

Read on Substack

/by

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.

/by

Labor’s Communist Farm Plot

,

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

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/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

Oakey Meat Works Pollution

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript | Session 1

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: So did the Queensland EPA investigate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr McConville: Certainly, Senator.

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Queensland is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR: We will now break for morning tea.

Transcript | Session 2

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Colorado River Basin would be pretty significant.

Mr McConville: Indeed.

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

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

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

Mr McConville: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr McConville: Yes.

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

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

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

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

Ms Hickey: Can you repeat your question for me.

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: It is 2,200 gigalitres.

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

Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?

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

Senator ROBERTS: That’s over what period?

Ms Hickey: The 2023-24 water year.

Senator ROBERTS: One year of floods.

Ms Hickey: Coming off some wet periods.

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: That is domestic and irrigators?

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

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

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

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

CHAIR: Said the Queenslander!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Is that from the south-east?

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

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

/4 Comments/by

Government Lacks Strategy on Murray Darling Basin Plan, Despite Election Promises

,

The Government has exhausted its ideas for implementing the Murray Darling Basin Plan. The Albanese Labor Government has been in office for over two years now and implementing the MDB Plan was one of their key election promises. This implies that they should have had a clear strategy in place even before coming into government. Fast forward two years,    Parliament provides the legislative framework to complete the plan—legislation that should have reflected their intended program.

Yet that’s not what happened. When I inquired about the lack of specifics in the government’s “Restoring our Rivers” draft framework, the response made it clear that no real thought had gone into the plan or the legislation they introduced. After reading the “framework” and hearing the Department’s explanations, my belief is reinforced that the government has no real plan, other than to buy back large amounts of water from farmers. It seems they are deliberately delaying any announcement of buybacks until after the election.

Towards the end of this session, I inquired about the socio-economic test that had previously been applied to all water projects to ensure they did not adversely affect rural communities. This test was abolished under the Plibersek legislation and replaced with a meaningless statement. Their response made it clear that the test would no longer prevent bad projects. Instead, it was substituted with lip service and a small allocation of funds for minor community projects, which falls far short of addressing the real socio-economic damage caused by water purchases.

Transcript | Part 1

Senator ROBERTS: How much has been spent on the Restoring Our Rivers draft framework so far? After two years in office, I expected a more detailed and transparent document than this.  

Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers framework followed the amendments to the basin plan and Water Act at the very end of last calendar year. That’s a framework released on 29 January, earlier this year, to go through and explain how we’re proposing to deliver the 450 gigalitres. It was released with a range of principles and programs around the delivery of the 450, and released for consultation. With the new legislation there’s an expanded time frame to the end of 2027 to deliver the 450. This is an important consultation document that was released early to seek views and public consultations on how we’re going to go about delivering that 450 gigalitres. We had over 100 submissions. We had lots of consultations with representative groups. At the same time as releasing that framework for consultation we did open one of the programs. That program is our water recovery infrastructure program, which is state led. It was launched on 29 January, and that’s an opportunity for basin states to bring forward water-saving infrastructure projects. So, that’s actual projects to be delivered. Those projects would include off-farm projects, on the property and non-farm projects. That’s a program that opened on 29 January. 

Senator ROBERTS: This document came out in January this year; that’s what you’re saying?  

Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers draft framework document?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it.  

Ms O’Connell: It followed the changes to the legislation. That’s the important thing. The legislation changed at the end of November.  The legislation passed parliament at the end of November and commenced on 7 December.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought there would have been a lot of work put into that legislation. I’m assuming there was, but I’m amazed at the lack of any real data in this plan or draft framework. It suggests to me that the department is flat out of ideas. It’s like nobody cares anymore. Just buy what we need in water buybacks and destroy the bush and call the job done. Minister, are you stalling for an election rather than upsetting people now with buybacks?  

Ms O’Connell: When that framework was released, we also opened a program—not something for consultation, an actual program—for state-led infrastructure projects to come forward to be proposed.  The framework is, as it says, a framing document. It articulates three proposed programs. The first program that Ms O’Connell refers to, the Resilient Rivers Water Infrastructure Program, is supported by a range of extensive guideline documents, which are available on our website. There are discussions going on with states about getting access to what I think is almost half a billion dollars worth of funding. We have been consulting extensively in relation to another proposed program under the framework, which is a sustainable communities program. Once the results of consultation have been taken on board and that program commences, additional information and guidance around that program will also be published on the website. The third proposed program is in relation to a proposed voluntary water purchase, and the same thing will occur there. It’s a framing document to articulate a range of proposed programs across a variety of recovery tools.  

Senator ROBERTS: It just seems that it’s lacking in data and detail. It just seems light on. But thank you for your answers. Minister, the draft plan actually proposes on page 16 to count the water overpurchases towards the 450 gigalitres. Minister, will you give an undertaking to do exactly that?  

Senator McAllister: I think it is dependent on understanding what any overrecovery might have involved and officials can give you an update on how the system works to produce an evaluation of the state of play, for want of a better term.  

Ms Connell: Currently, there are approximately 78 gigalitres of overcovered water across the northern and southern basins. In terms of being able to count that amount of water towards the 450 gigalitre target, some of those catchments are in New South Wales and they’re in catchments for which water resource plans are yet to be accredited. To be able to determine what the final overrecovery amount is requires the water resource plan to be accredited and for the MDBA to have assessed and verified the modelling so we can have the assurance of exactly where the overrecovered amount falls. We expect to be in a situation across all of the relevant catchments—and I think there are about seven or eight where there are overrecoveries—where work is completed by the MDBA by about June next year.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re waiting on some of the New South Wales valleys, I understand?  

Ms Connell: That’s correct.  In earlier evidence today, there are six remaining water resource plans to be accredited out of the 20 for New South Wales. There is a dependence there, as my colleague outlined.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand you’re not making a commitment without those plans, but assuming the plans are in place then overrecovery will be counted as part of the 450?  

Ms Connell: The draft framework contemplates that exact situation, and we’re in the process of assessing. We got over 100 submissions and they’re of a really high detailed quality. We recently released a report which digests all of that consultation feedback. That’s been now put on the public record. The next step is to publish the final framework. The final framework will set out the government’s proposed approach in relation to overrecoveries.  

Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on a new approach to water recovery while also meeting the legislated requirements to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities? 

Ms Connell: As you refer to, the Productivity Commission released its, I think, second implementation inquiry into the basin plan, which was published this year. It had a range of recommendations and many of those recommendations have actually been implemented or acted upon in terms of securing the Our Rivers legislation. Then there are a range of other initiatives that the government is undertaking to implement those recommendations. There’s quite a number of them. If there’s a specific recommendation you’re interested in, I’m happy to give you an answer about that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an overview of how the government is implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations?  

Ms Connell: The first key critical step to deal with the range of issues the Productivity Commission raised was actually the passage of the Restoring Our Rivers legislation. The Productivity Commission released its interim report while the legislation was in parliament and progressing through parliament. A lot of the amendments moved in the House of Representatives and in the Senate went to addressing issues in the Productivity Commission report. Time Frame extensions were a key issue the Productivity Commission raised. They called out, as many reports have over the last couple of years in terms of basin plan progress, that more time was required. That was a key component of the legislation. They called out the fact that the 450 gigalitre target would require water purchase. Voluntary water purchase is one of the pathways for recovery. They noted that was more cost-effective relative to infrastructure projects. One of the key elements of the Restoring Our Rivers Act was to make water purchase a feasible pathway.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about in relation to meeting the legislated requirement to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities?  

Ms Connell: The legislation included several reforms in relation to that proposal. Firstly, there’s a requirement for a third independent review of the WESA. Unlike the first two reviews, the third review has to actually look at socioeconomic impacts on basin communities. The minister is now also required to consider the social and economic impacts on basin communities of a proposed water purchase program before she launches a water purchase program. There is quite a range of initiatives in relation to socioeconomic impacts.  

Significantly, more broadly, there are three principles that guide overall water recovery. The first of those is enhanced environmental outcomes. The second is minimising socioeconomic impacts, and the third is achieving value for money. So, there’s an overall set of principles.  

I will just note one of the key recommendations of the commission—I think it’s recommendation 2.4—was that in terms of water recovery the government should take a staged and gradual approach and it should provide adjustment assistance to communities to deal with proposed water purchase. As Ms O’Connell said, that’s at the core of the draft framework. One of the three pillars, if you like, is looking at socioeconomic impacts, and one of the responses to that is the establishment of a sustainable communities program. The purpose of that program will be to provide adjustment assistance to communities.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that later. Why has the government not released the Water Recovery Strategy foreshadowed by the Productivity Commission? Six months after the passage of the restoring our rivers bill, why do we only have a draft framework lacking in detail?  

Ms Connell: As I said earlier, the draft framework foreshadows three programs. One of those programs is a water purchase program. When the government moves to commence water purchase, it will release the document that the Productivity Commission refers to.  The legislation passed at the end of November. The framework was released at the end of January, so not long after. It’s important that we go out and consult on these matters. There’s a huge amount of interest. That’s what we were doing, consulting.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will the feedback on the government’s draft framework on recovering the additional 450 gigs be made available?  

Ms O’Connell: That I think was actually published on our website yesterday. I’m happy to table a copy—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yesterday? That’s a funny thing. Pardon me for being a bit—what’s the word?  

Senator Payman: Cynical.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, not quite ‘cynical’. Sceptical maybe. A number of things were published right before the day of standard estimates scheduled hearings. Anyway, that’s good. Thank you.  

Senator McAllister: I suppose the counterfactual is that if it’s not published then you don’t have the opportunity to examine it. You’re very welcome to ask questions about the material that’s in the public domain.  

Ms O’Connell: If it’s useful, we can table the link so that you can go to it, but it is on our website. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts, before we rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department met with industry groups collectively regarding feedback on this draft framework for the additional 450 gigalitres, and where will it come from?  

Ms O’Connell: Yes, there’s been extensive consultation as part of the framework being out there—as I said, over 100 submissions. But we can also go through and talk to you about the discussions with groups that we’ve had, the consultations that we’ve done and webinars that we’ve had.  The nature of the consultation and the groups we consulted with are set out in the document we’ve published. We’ve held many workshops over the last six months with industry groups and peak stakeholder groups, and we’ve met quite a few times with the basin community committee. We’ve had discussions with particular sectors within industry—the rice sector and the dairy sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are those workshops online?  

Ms Connell: Predominantly, but we’ve also had face-to-face meetings and meetings out in the basin. So, through a range of different consultation mechanisms and including public webinars.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many online and how many—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re now going to have to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: If I could just follow up on that. How many face-to-face workshops and how many online?  

Ms Connell: I’d have to take that on notice—  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.  

Ms Connell: to give you that answer.  

Transcript | Part 2

Senator ROBERTS: Ms O’Connell or Ms Connell—  

Ms O’Connell: I know—they’re very similar names.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, for the one with the ‘O’ or the one without the ‘O’, you said the plan water numbers were online. My office is pretty good at surfing the internet, but they clicked right through the website and couldn’t find it. Could you send that link, please, that you offered?  

Ms O’Connell: Yes. Just to be clear, that’s the link on the report on the 450 gigalitre framework consultation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the water quantities.  

Ms Connell: The overrecoveries?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Connell: We can provide you with that information.  

Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendation on transparency and accountability for basin plan decisions? We’ve got a few here about the ACT. What information has the government released about the Australian Capital Territory Bridging the Gap project announced on 3 April?  

Ms O’Connell: There was a press release on the ACT Bridging the Gap. The date of that release was 3 April 2024. There was a joint media release on ACT fulfilling its water recovery commitments under the MurrayDarling Basin Plan Bridging the Gap.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has there been any more information?  

Ms O’Connell: We’re happy to provide you with more information.  

Mr Southwell: The FFA, the Federation Funding Agreement, that relates to that matter has been published on the Department of Treasury’s website.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Department of Treasury?  

Mr Southwell: It’s a website for federal financial relations and FFA is there.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are so many bureaucracies and so many departments. That’s fine.  

Mr Southwell: That’s where all of the FFAs have to be published. That relates to the minister’s press release. The FFA itself was executed on 14 March when the ACT signed it, and that provided the $58 million for the 6.36 gigalitres of water that the arrangement related to.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, 6.3 gigalitres, did you say?  

Mr Southwell: 6.36 gigalitres.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was to be my next question. Now my next question instead is: how much per megalitre was paid to the ACT, including previous payments?  

Mr Southwell: This FFA is $58.83 million for the 6.36 gigalitres, and that works out at $9,250 a megalitre.  

Senator ROBERTS: What part of the ACT is the water being recovered from?  

Mr Southwell: The FFA itself doesn’t require specific components from the ACT. The ACT has said that they will use the money received to implement long-term water management changes, including water sensitive urban design activities, incentivising community change to reduce water use and water quality improvement activities.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, no specific water was released?  

Mr Southwell: I think it’s called the Halls Gap site—the Lower Molonglo. 

Senator DAVEY: Only state—  

Mr Southwell: No. The transfer of entitlements has occurred. It is with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The Commonwealth received a licence of 6.36 gigalitres. That comprised 4.9 towards Bridging the Gap, and an additional 1.46 gigalitres of water towards broader basin plan outcomes. That water has since been specified by Minister Plibersek as being held environmental water to contribute towards the 450 gigalitre target.  

Senator ROBERTS: The water is no longer going to the ACT?  

Mr Southwell: That water is now held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that entitlement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it water that’s actually being held or is it water that will be held due to savings in the future? I didn’t quite understand.  

Mr Southwell: The entitlement has been transferred now.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.  

Mr Southwell: It’s with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Dr Banks: I can confirm that water entitlement was registered on 18 April to the Commonwealth’s environmental water holdings.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, part of that was part of the efficiency measures towards the additional 450 gig?  

Mr Southwell: 1.46 gigalitres. ACT identified that they could deliver 6.36. Their gap that was remaining for Bridging the Gap—4.9. That’s been met in full. So, the ACT no longer has a gap. With the additional 1.46, that has now been determined as contributing towards the 450 gigalitres, which means 1.46 gigalitres less that has to be recovered elsewhere.  

Senator ROBERTS: When or how did officials agree to this socioeconomic criteria for the funding?  

Mr Southwell: The department evaluated the offer that was made from the ACT. We provided advice to the minister, a comprehensive assessment around the water and the value that it represented and its contribution towards the basin plan, and provided advice to the minister accordingly.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your answers being so direct and clear. Is that publicly available, that information?  

Mr Southwell: The evaluation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Southwell: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get a copy of it on notice.  

Mr Southwell: On notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re six months out from the passage of the restoring our rivers bill. Have any new SDLAM projects been started? Mr Ward: No new projects have been started. But as I mentioned earlier in the day, we’re working very closely with our basin state colleagues on identifying ideas and progressing them forward. There were seven that were shortlisted by the basin officials committee earlier this year for the states to undertake further development of those, and the information on that is published on our department website.  Have any decisions been made on new SDLAM projects?  

Ms O’Connell: Not by basin officials committees yet. There are prospective projects being worked on. We anticipate—and I gave this evidence earlier today—that New South Wales will be bringing forward a new project soon. They have advised us they intend bringing forward a new project soon and then basin officials will have a look at that.  

Senator ROBERTS: What timeline is likely for new SDLAM projects?  

Ms O’Connell: It really depends on the project in terms of how long it takes to deliver the project. The delivery timeframe for all SDLAM projects, which applies to new ones, is— Mr Ward: There are three key dates. New projects have to be notified by basin officials by 30 June 2025. States then have until 30 June 2026 to either amend or withdraw projects, and then all projects must be in operation on 31 December 2026.  

Senator ROBERTS: I take it it’s too early to determine what the likely volumetric outcome is, much too early?  

Ms O’Connell: Correct. It is a tight timeframe, as my colleague outlined. 

Mr McConville: If I may add, the reconciliation process will occur, in terms of your question around volumes, after December 2026. The MDBA will be required to do a reconciliation after that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Socioeconomic considerations—how is the government intending to meet the requirements to consider socioeconomic impacts of buybacks when it has such an unrealistic target, in my opinion, of recovery of 100 gigalitres per annum?  

Ms Connell: As the draft framework makes clear, considering socioeconomic impacts needs to be a key consideration in each water recovery pathway. It really depends on the option being pursued, whether it’s infrastructure, rules based or voluntary water purchase. But I can talk in more detail about the work that we’re doing and the investigations we’re undertaking in relation to potential water purchase. We’re undertaking a range of work. There was a quite significant investigation into socioeconomic impacts of the basin plan quite a few years ago chaired by Robbie Sefton. She chaired a panel. The advice of the Sefton report was, given that there are really quite complex drivers of socioeconomic impacts in the basin—climate, drought, technology, labour inputs, energy inputs—it’s important to look at multiple lines of inquiry to develop the evidence base. So we’re doing a couple of things. We’re looking back. We’ve got the benefit of a range of reports that have been undertaken looking at socioeconomic impacts of water recovery options over the last couple of years. AITHER has done some work for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which has been a key reference point for us. Marsden Jacobs Associates, another firm, did quite detailed investigations for the Sefton review, and New South Wales has recently published a report which we’ve had reference to as well. I guess the other key significant thing that we’re doing is most of those reports find that it’s quite hard to actually pull apart what impacts water recovery has on regional communities, and it’s important to have a discussion with communities to involve them in those issues. One of the key elements of the consultation we did around the draft framework was to seek very specific feedback about past experience of water recovery programs, past experience of community adjustment programs, and we’re pulling that all together. We’ll also be drawing on advice from ABARES.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it used to be the requirement that we must have a socioeconomic benefit. Now it comes down to, at the top of page 18 of your draft framework report, the ‘Sustainable Communities program will seek to mitigate unavoidable socioeconomic impacts’.  

Ms Connell: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s change the target.  

Ms Connell: Our first order approach is to prioritise a non-water purchase option. We’ve talked quite a bit today about the fact that the infrastructure program opened in January and then the other kind of core program under the framework is the Sustainable Communities program. We’ve been working really quite intensively with stakeholders to get feedback on a draft of principles to guide how funding for community adjustment should be directed. So, we’ve received really quite extensive and clear feedback. There are seven principles that will form the foundation of the community adjustment program. The feedback largely supported each of those principles. Many of them were very strongly supported. There was a strong emphasis from local councils in particular. They’ve been closely engaged in the design of any community adjustment principles. So, that is something we will be definitely taking on board. We’re currently working with basin states to look at getting funding arrangements in place so that funding can flow in the new financial year. 

Transcript | Part 3

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: The draft framework for delivering the additional 450 gigalitres per year outlined in the restoring our rivers bill provided more funding towards finalising the basin plan, but the budget indicated this funding was not for publication. How much funding is required?  

Ms O’Connell: As you mentioned, the budget papers say that it is not for publication, and the reason for that is there will be potential for competitive tendering. You wouldn’t normally publish the figures prior to going to a tender.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept that.  

Ms O’Connell: So it’s not for publication.  

Senator ROBERTS: What provision will be made to support the river communities that will be impacted by water recovery?  

Ms Connell: We spoke about that a bit earlier this afternoon. The framework describes a Sustainable Communities program that’s for community adjustment. The funding will go through states under federal financial agreements. The proposal is for a specific standalone program focused on supporting communities that need support to adjust, and for that funding to be provided through states who are best placed to work with local communities to build on their existing regional stakeholder engagement networks, and also to build on existing funding that’s going into those particular communities that need to be the focus.  

Senator ROBERTS: So federal funding through the states?  

Ms Connell: Funding under FFAs, federal funding agreements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this seems to be a continuation of the undeclared war on farmers. I’ve been to Dirranbandi in Southern Queensland, the border community there, and the same applies to Northern New South Wales. Senator Davey, I’m sure, will be concerned as well. Who gets the land after you drive farmers off? A lot of farmers have been driven off in Dirranbandi and other places. Who is going to use this land once you get rid of the farmers? For what purpose will they use it?  

Senator McAllister: I don’t accept the scenarios that you set out in your question. Nor do I accept your characterisation of our posture towards Australian agricultural communities. Our view is that a sustainable basin, a healthy working river, is essential to underwrite the future of food and fibre production in this country, to underwrite the future of regional towns that depend, as has been discussed earlier today, on adequate supplies of clean drinking water, and also to protect our environmental assets in the basin. We think those three things are compatible with one another and, in fact, interdependent. The approach we’re taking is working through a difficult and challenging reform. It now looks like it will be a multidecade reform. It’s one that’s been going on for many years. It requires cooperation between the states and the territories and the Commonwealth. It has been bipartisan. Regrettably, not very much progress was made in the decade that the coalition was in office. But in the two years we’ve been in government we have set about looking at the progress that’s been made so far, what more needs to be done and putting in place the legislative arrangements, the financial arrangements and the implementation arrangements, to implement the basin plan in full.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of the rewilding plan that’s part of the United Nations Agenda 2030 as it is now? It was exposed in the United States. There are similar concepts here.  

Senator McAllister: You’ll have to table the United Nations documentation. I haven’t seen that documentation.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about hollowing out the bush? I’ve been to Moulamein in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. What about compensation to supermarkets, small businesses in the areas who will all lose business with the water that’s going to be taken, and with that lose the critical mass necessary to keep these towns going? Football teams are dying; sporting clubs are dying. What about the compensation for the people who are not on the land but who depend upon the people on the land?  

Senator McAllister: Over the course of today we’ve had a few discussions about socioeconomic impacts, some of them in response to questions from yourself. I think you heard Ms Connor speak earlier about some of the research that’s occurred already about the multiple drivers of change in Australian rural communities. You’ve also heard Ms O’Connell and Ms Connor speak about the approach to socioeconomic assessment in terms of any decisions that might be taken. You have, thirdly, heard just now a description of the approach that’s proposed in terms of working with the states and territories to provide support for communities. I’m not sure how further to respond to your questions, but I do think a lot of information has been provided over the course of the day about the way we’re thinking about these challenges in implementing the plan in full—something I believe continues to have bipartisan support, as confirmed by Senators Davey and Ruston earlier.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total cost estimate to complete the basin plan?  

Mr Dadswell: Current public commitments to the basin plan are around $13 billion. That’s over the life of the plan, over the last 12 years. There’s about—  

Senator ROBERTS: So that includes past—  

Mr Dadswell: Yes, past programs and existing, and including the ones from the 2024-25 budget. There’s around $3 billion in publicly stated funding that remains against that $13 billion to be spent.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/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