Department of Agriculture Questioned at Estimates on Fire Ant Eradication Program

, , ,

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

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

Transcript

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

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

[Mr Metcalfe] These are red imported fire ants?

Yeah, red imported fire ants.

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] 400 million over what period?

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

[Malcolm Roberts] So about 41 million a year.

[Ms Laduzko] Yeah, roughly speaking.

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you.

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Queensland or Australia?

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

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

[Mr Tongue] Certainly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] So we’re halfway through.

[Ms Laduzko] A little less than halfway.

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] And it makes it difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Tongue] Sure.

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] So there are conditions attached?

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Quantified.

[Mr Tongue] Yep.

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

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

/by

Here’s one for the Farmers: Restoration or Compensation (Climate Change Authority)

, ,

The government has been able to cut down emissions mostly on the back of locking up land and stopping farmers from using it. This huge infringement on property rights by the states has been done without compensation. It is disgusting that governments have locked up farmer’s land to meet United Nations emissions targets. Every farmer deserves either restoration of their rights to use the land how they need or compensation for the rights they have lost.

Transcript

Hanson-Young, Senator Roberts. You have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair. Thank you for being here. Minister, I’d like to ask you a question. Several questions, in fact. In order to comply with the UN’s Kyoto climate protocol in 1996, the then Howard Anderson Liberal National’s Government appropriated farmers’ property, specifically land property rights. But section 51 clause 31 of our country’s Federal Constitution requiring the payment of just terms compensation. So what the Howard Anderson government did was a deal with firstly the Borbidge National Party Government in Queensland state government. And later, that was in 1996, and then a Memorandum of Understanding. And then in 1998, the Howard Anderson Government did a deal with the Beattie Labour Government. Again, a state government. So these state governments initially signed a Memorandum of Understanding and later passed state laws forbidding the clearing of land under various guises such as native vegetation protection. So they appropriated farmers’ property rights for the Howard Anderson Government to comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. And that’s in writing from Premier Beattie. And it’s, it’s quite clear from what the Premier’s have said in Queensland and New South Wales. Minister, is this fair? To go around the Constitution to appropriate someone’s property rights? As citizens, Australian citizens, property right?

Well look–

[Chair] All right, that’s asking a matter of opinion.

[Malcolm Roberts] But the Minister, I’m not asking it of the public service.

Well, you can ask the Minister about government–

[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a fair policy?

[Chair] Well Minister, if you wish to answer that you can.

I mean, you’re asking me to comment on policies going back to, you know, well before my time in politics, in the first instance. In the, in the 1990s. So I might, I might sort of take it as a comment. I understand the concerns you’re raising. There’s obviously a lot of, would’ve been a lot of factors being debated there. And in terms of the constitutional issues you raise, well of course those issues are always a matter for the high court.

[Malcolm Roberts] Given that a few tens of thousands of farmers carried the burden for a whole nation just to comply with arbitrary UN dictates without compensation. And it was done deceptively to get around their constitutional rights as Australian citizens. Is it reasonable–

Senator Roberts, imputation of improper motives is not in line with the standing of this. You should withdraw that and–

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll withdraw that

and rephrase your question.

[Malcolm Roberts] But it was clearly stated by the Queensland Premier that it was done to enable compliance with the Howard Anderson Government with UN Kyoto Protocol. That was clearly stated. Minister, are you aware that seven years after Prime Minister Howard was removed from office in 2014, in a major address to a global warming policy think tank that opposes the UN’s de industrialization of Western civilization. Prime Minister Howard admitted that on the matter of climate science, he was agnostic. Yet he put in place their renewable energy target. He had the first major party policy on emissions trading schemes or carbon tax. He was the first to introduce that as a policy and he also appropriated or caused the appropriation of farmers’ property rights. And yet he was agnostic on climate science.

I’m not aware of those comments.

[Malcolm Roberts] So he appropriated property from tens of thousands of farmers to achieve our goals under UN dictates. And yet himself was agnostic on the climate science. So what will your government do to restore or compensate farmers for property stolen from them?

Well, look, you’ve made a number of assertions there. It’s difficult for me to– It’s difficult for me to give a, perhaps a useful answer to you without dealing with all of the assertions. And it’s difficult for me to deal with them. So–

[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to have a conversation later.

It, well, indeed, I’m very happy to. But I might, I might take, I think it’s very difficult for me to answer as you’ve made a number of assertions. We could probably spend a lot of time on those. I don’t know how useful it would be. But, I’d probably perhaps take it as a comment.

[Chair] And Senator Roberts I would just say you do have the offer there from the Minister there to engage some other time. You have the Climate Change Authority here before you. So can I encourage you if you have question of them, to put questions to them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Certainly, I will just make the point though that farmers are wanting either restoration of their lawful rights, their constitutional rights, or compensation for that. Thousands of farmers deserve it. Now to the clean energy, to the Climate Change Authority. Your authority’s Toolkit for 2030 rehearsed all the familiar factoids. It shows a graph. I don’t know the title of the graph. But it shows the various– costs of various reductions of emissions and production of carbon dioxide and the costs. And the most prominent, and the entire load is carried by this. The only one that declined significantly is land use, reflecting what I was just talking about with the minister. So. Are you willing to talk about your views on solar energy? Because, let me see, I think it was Arena said that solar energy is now the cheapest form of energy. My understanding is that in Saudi Arabia, that is correct. But when we factor in the fact that we need a certain area of land covered in solar panels. Then you factor in the cloudy days that doubles that area. So it’s now double that cost. When you factor in the nighttime, no sun shines. Not even in Saudi Arabia. That’s triple the area. Then we need the cost of the battery. Solar becomes prohibitively and impossibly expensive. Can you make any comments on that?

Certainly. So Brad Archer, Chief Executive Officer of the Climate Change Authority. Senator, I’m not sure I have a lot to add to the advice that colleagues from other agencies have provided here this evening on that question. We looked to the same reports, analysis and evidence that they do including the International Energy Agency and authorities such as the Australian Energy Market Operator here in Australia. And the analysis and modelling that they put forward clearly shows that renewable energy and in particular, solar is highly cost competitive compared against other new build technologies into the future. And that, that advice looks reasonably compelling.

[Malcolm Roberts] It does look compelling on a per unit basis until we factor in the need for additional solar panels to cover for cloudy days and nighttime and batteries. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive. It becomes a parasitic mal investment.

Senator, the analysis that I’m referring to that I’m aware of includes the costs of firming technologies that are required to ensure that we have a reliable electricity supply while relying predominantly on variable renewable energy technologies.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, the claims of climate change and especially climate alarm are driving this. But we’ve heard of worries tonight from several agencies. Snowy Hydro in particular. But also Minister Taylor was forthright enough to come out a couple of weeks ago and say that he’s very concerned about future prices. He’s very concerned about grid stability, and he’s very concerned about the loss of reliability from our energy sector. And what I’ve seen in the thread going through all these presentations is the use of terms. Firming for example, instead of unreliability or insecurity. The term is firming, sounds lovely. Instead of high price, the term is subsidy or enhancement. Instead of instability, the term is frequency control auxiliary service. A service, an additional cost that doesn’t come with base load power from coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear or hydro. It’s an addition. Instead of blackout, the term is system integrity protection system. Instead of power cuts, the demand, the term is demand management. Sounds wonderful. Instead of unreliables, the term is clean energy. What exactly do you do.

Senator, I’m just not quite sure what your, what your question is that you’d like me to address.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll take a quote from your authority’s report. Or Toolkit for 2030. Australia’s electricity sector is undergoing a transformation. From all of the things that we took for granted walking in and flipping a switch. Reliability, cheap, the cheapest power in the world. To now amongst the most expensive. We’re undergoing a transformation. Government Australia’s electricity sector is undergoing a transformation. Government support for renewable energy, the emergence of new clean energy technologies. Declining technology costs, and the need to replace an ageing coal fired generation fleet are all playing a part. Then you continue. Currently markets fail to adequately recognise and price climate related risk because of a lack of information and short-termism in investment decision making. However, this is changing quickly as relevant tools become available and financial regulators divert more attention to the issue. What are you doing? What do you do?

Well sir, I think in large part you’ve provided the answer by reading the material that’s in the authority’s report. There are a range of factors that are driving a transformation in electricity sector. Some of those are related to the response to climate change impacts and risks, and others are a result of what’s happening in the market itself and the need to replace ageing generation assets. And I think both the market and the market authorities are recognising that the cheapest way to do that and build the electricity system that we need in the future is with the low cost technologies. And which also have the benefit of being low emissions. So we have a range of institutions that are spending a lot of time working out how to ensure that the electricity system of the future is stable and reliable and affordable. For example, the energy security board is leading work on future market arrangements for the electricity sector. That’s a major piece of work. And there are other institutions in the electricity sector which are also turning their mind to these issues. So, and I think there’s a broad consensus that we have the technologies, and we have the means of achieving an electricity system which does meet those goals.

[Malcolm Roberts] Did you respond to my requests put on notice for the evidence upon which this is all based? The climate evidence?

[Brad Archer] Senator–

[Malcolm Roberts] The reason I ask is I’m not trying to be cheeky or smart. I don’t know because we were flooded with responses late last week, just a few days before Senate estimates. And I don’t know which ones have replied and which ones haven’t, but we asked you for that. Where’s your empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. We wanted the specific location of the evidence the data and the framework for proving that. And we also wanted the specific relationship between carbon dioxide quantities that affect climate temperature, wind, rainfall, etc. So you just mentioned, could you put it on, get me on notice, please. You just mentioned the effects of climate change that are already present and the risks that you foresee. Could you give me that on notice?

Well, I could give you that on notice and I can also attempt to answer that briefly today.

[Chair] Sure, on notice would be fine.

[Malcolm Roberts] Certainly, sure.

[Chair] All right, thank you.

/2 Comments/by

How Northern Australia is left behind by the government

, ,

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has been slammed as too hard to access and failing in its job to support growth in the North.

While this bill will hopefully begin to fix that, the real problems are far bigger. Access to cheap, reliable electricity, water and an efficient tax system are the biggest blockages to development. Fix those and the entire country will boom.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, Senator Hanson and I are passionate about developing the northern part of our country. The 2015 government white paper clearly articulated the unique challenges facing our north. It’s a no-brainer. Consider these things: long distances; highly variable weather, with more extreme weather in cyclones; services; shortage of services; and reliable and accessible infrastructure—which we simply take for granted here in the south. There are no economies of scale in the north, and they have smaller populations and plenty of communications blackouts.

In spite of the best intentions, a big pot of money and all the knowledge required to develop a robust fit-for-purpose infrastructure fund to meet the needs of the north, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has not been fit for purpose. As a member of the Select Committee on the effectiveness of the Australian Government’s Northern Australia agenda, I repeatedly felt disappointed to hear witnesses across northern Australia stating that getting money from NAIF was impossible.

Northern Australia is operating from a lower base than in the south. The foundational pieces that we take for granted here in the south—all-weather road access, reliable internet and access to a skilled workforce and highly qualified professionals, be they in the trades, engineering or medicine—are not readily available across northern Australia.

NAIF needed to be adding value to northern development at a grassroots level, yet missed that target altogether. It’s significant that, for a 20-year development horizon, the first five years have been far from optimal. We welcome the changes included in this legislation, but the ground lost during the last five years was an unnecessary opportunity cost and loss of momentum. The government had all the information it needed to have made better decisions from the start.

A more accessible NAIF is not the only element, though, that needs to be addressed. It’s ironic that the issues that need addressing to facilitate development in the north are systematically being dismantled in the south due to atrocious federal and state governments. For example, energy, land tenure and water access and price are severe problems and hurdles in the north. How the hell can these be addressed and solved with policies currently destroying energy, destroying water access and raising water prices, and destroying land tenure in the south? The problems in the north cannot be solved with these destructive policies.

It’s wonderful to have NAIF improved, but we need to get the governance in this country fixed. The core issue suppressing development in the north is atrocious state and federal governance. People, their talents and resources are being suffocated under the stifling morass of bureaucracy inherent in the interference, overlap and duplication of government agencies, state and federal. Until this poor governance is addressed, the good work that NAIF can bring will be diluted and development in the north will remain painfully slow, to the whole country’s detriment.

I look forward to the next review to see how quickly and effectively this last $2.5 billion brings northern Australia along with the rest of the country. We will be support being this bill, especially given the deadline of 30 June for the changes, and we will be closely scrutinising all amendments. We will not be supporting racially based amendments. We will improve assistance to the people in the north, and I point out some of the comments in my dissenting report to the Northern Australia agenda inquiry. We will be balanced and measured, but we will always ensure responsibility is with the right people.

/by

Northern Australia left behind by terrible government

, , ,

In North Queensland I met local visionaries with commitment, competence and dedication to a better North. But that was matched, sadly, on the other side of the scale by the incompetence of state and federal governments.

The North is simply waiting for good governance, I hope they get it before it is too late.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to relate my travels through the Flinders catchment area, which is the fourth biggest river flow in Queensland. There is rich soil, vast grassy plains with no trees and water: abundant water, regular water yet untapped. The potential is being wasted. I felt excited, supported, encouraged and inspired by the people I met in North Queensland, but I also felt worried and disappointed because of the atrocious state and federal governments that are cruelling that area. My needs in the people were met entirely: commitment, competence, dedication. But that was matched, sadly, on the other side of the scale by the inability of the state and federal governments to meet their needs for support and good governance.

We went to look firstly at the Bradfield Scheme, to do our due diligence. We’ve done it at the Murray-Darling Basin; now we’ve done it in the Flinders. The Bradfield Scheme is a visionary scheme to turn the waters that are flowing to the east and being wasted to the west and into the Thomson. We wanted to look at the Murray-Darling Basin catchment, which we have, and also at the Flinders, and this was a chance to see the Bradfield Scheme source and then to go across the Flinders. What we saw flying up the coast was naturally wet area in the tropics, the coast, Ingham and Tully. We then swung west over the Tully midstream and all the way down the Burdekin River to the Burdekin Falls Dam. We then turned west and went back across the Flinders catchment area, through Charters Towers, Hughenden, Richmond, Julia Creek, Cloncurry. We touched down in Cloncurry to fuel and then went north to Normanton, where there are huge vast plains, and then back south-west to Townsville where we started.

We then spent a week driving on the ground, listening to people, getting the lay of the land and the lay of the people. What impressed us were the locals with vision, real vision, complemented by their energy, their knowledge, their competence and their practicality. It was very inspiring, as I’ve already said. And there was plenty of water. They all said: ‘We don’t need the Bradfield Scheme water here. Let it go to the Thomson, as the original visionary plan from Bradfield suggested.’

In particular, I was impressed with the Richmond council; John Wharton, who is I think Queensland’s longest serving mayor—25 years if my memory is correct; and his very young but very competent CEO, Peter Bennett. They have a plan and a project that the locals are onboard with, called the Richmond agricultural project. It’s very simple: no dams, just divert water to 8,000 hectares of irrigable and rich, fertile soil. With agricultural production comes people and with people come services. Instead of Richmond bobbing around at 900 people, we can get it back up to 3,000, maybe even 8,000, people. It could be a really vibrant area in the north.

We also visited Hughenden, where the same recipe is being followed: water captured not in a dam but in weirs and diverted into storage areas or underground water. We saw Jane McNamara leading her team there; and Daryl Buckingham, who’s had experience in the Murray-Darling Basin and who’s transferring it to the north. We also visited HIPCo, Hughenden Irrigation Project Corporation, with Shane McCarthy. The council sponsored projects there, as I said, follow the same recipe.

We then went to Julia Creek on the ground, and we went to Etta Plains where we saw a very dynamic young Lucas Findley from Findley farms escaping the Murray-Darling Basin and the devastation of the regulations, the bureaucracy and the poor governance in the south. And we saw something fresh.

I could go on, but time will catch me here. What they’re all waiting for is good governance, which the state government and the federal government are not providing. The state government won’t allocate water allocations. They can’t do anything without that.

Ironically, the state government talks about capturing carbon dioxide, which the evidence shows is not necessary, but crops absorb carbon dioxide, and dams create crops that will absorb carbon dioxide. If they were fair dinkum, they’d do it. Ironically, the challenges up north are land tenure, water and energy. While they’re looking for it up north and have it in abundance, they can’t use it, because the same policies are destroying governance in the south.

/by

PRESS RELEASE: Northern Australia development is going nowhere fast

, ,

Despite huge potential Northern Australia continues to suffer.

Senator Roberts states that it is ironic that the issues that need addressing to facilitate development in the north are systematically being dismantled in the south due to atrocious federal and state governance.

“While witnesses from all corners of Northern Australia were unanimous in the issues facing living in the north: prohibitively high electricity and water costs; land tenure; housing; high cost of living; provision of high-quality health and education services, insurance and livability, it is the underlying root cause of poor governance that is the focus of Senator Roberts’ dissenting report.

“The White Paper for Developing Northern Australia published in 2015 calls for stronger governance by 2035, yet since 2015 poor governance continues to prevail and is choking our nation,” added Senator Roberts.

“People, their talents and resources are being suffocated under a stifling morass of bureaucracy inherent in the interference, overlap and duplication of government agencies.

“Australia’s aboriginal communities have for decades suffered under misguided patronising policies that have removed all control, self-determination and responsibility to help their communities flourish.

“While I do not support racially-based policies, I do support policies that reflect the needs of communities, whether they be black or white,” he said.

The Northern Australia Agenda committee travelled widely and listened to an exceptional array of witness statements and it is vital that the government listen to them.

“Instead of the hollow lip service of let’s grow northern Australia with a pot of money out of reach of those who need it, politicians need to get serious about addressing the underlying root cause of poor governance across our nation.

“Development in the north is painfully slow and at this rate is going nowhere fast,” he said.

Senator Roberts’ Dissenting Report: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/NorthernAustraliaAgenda/NorthernAustraliaAgenda/Report/section?id=committees%2freportsen%2f024637%2f76708

/by

Tax Reform in Australia

,

Tax is one of the biggest costs to this country and governments are not spending it wisely. Tax reform is in the ‘too hard’ basket for both parties but the country is dying without it. Take for example the GST. When it was introduced, the State Governments promised to abolish 6 different taxes to make up for it. Every single one of them is still being slugged on Australians.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] G’day Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul] All right. Did you have a steak in the last couple of days up there in Rocky for beef week?

[Malcolm Roberts] I had one of the best steaks I’ve ever had, mate.

[Marcus Paul] Really?

[Malcolm Roberts] I had beef in the Rocky Sports Club two nights ago. Absolutely delicious. Just melted in my mouth.

[Marcus Paul] Oh, nice. Now, that’s a really big event up there, of course.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s huge. I don’t know how much it costs to support this and organise it, but it must be millions. It’s really well done. Very professionally done. It’s a really, really big credit to Rocky.

[Marcus Paul] Well, it attracted everybody including the prime minister of the country. He was there as well the other day.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s right. They’re all taking credit for it. Whereas it’s really the beef graziers and the beef associations that need to take credit for it. And Rockhampton.

[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Well look, so long as we support the industry, that’s I think what’s vitally important now. Malcolm, as you know, there’s a couple of things certain in this life. One is death, the other is bloody taxes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. The tax levied on families in Australia is completely unreasonable. I mean, Joe Hockey himself, the former treasurer, said in 2015, a typical Australian works from January to June just to pay taxes. You lose half your money in taxes, that’s what he said. In 2000, I think it was the Australian Bureau of Statistics, you can no longer get these figures but I’ve got to confirm them. A person, the ABS, I think it was, said a person earning the average income pays 68% to government in the form of rates, taxes, levies, fees, special charges. That means that a person on the average income, which today is $80000, works from Monday to mid-morning Thursday paying for government. So, we’ve been fed a line that’s a complete lie. We’ve been told that the biggest purchase of our life is a house. It’s not. The biggest purchase by far of our life is government. Who sees value for money in that purchase in Australia?

[Marcus Paul] So you work Monday to Thursday mid-morning paying government, not only obviously in income tax, but all the other levies, charges, etc.

[Malcolm Roberts] Rates, fees, that’s it. That’s it, Marcus. That’s far too high. People don’t mind paying tax, because they see that’s the cost of government. We’ve got to have defence, we’ve got to have police. Okay, we all get that. But tax also represents, when it’s wasted, when that money is wasted, Tax represents the cost of government waste. And that’s what people are paying for in this country. The abuse of their taxes by a government that is not accountable. That’s the problem.

[Marcus Paul] Why is it unfair, this tax levy? Why is it unfair? I mean, we’ve got multinationals that avoid paying probably their fair share. And I’ve discussed this at length with politicians from both sides of politics, but nobody can seem to come up with the right answer. I don’t understand why the burden falls on those most, I don’t want to say vulnerable. I mean, we all need to pay our own way and nobody can expect to get a handout for their entire life. Sure, from time to time, you might need a hand up. And that’s what the social service network is for. That’s why we have social security. But I mean for goodness sake, if we’re paying, as you say, you’re telling me we’re working Monday to Thursday mid-morning paying government in fees. Why is it then that big multinationals, why do we allow our administrators, our governments allow these big companies to avoid paying their fair share?

[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve nailed it. Let me give you some figures here. The deputy commissioner of taxation in 1996 and 2010, and his name was Jim Killaly, and I’ve met the man, I met him in early 2015, he said publicly in the media, that 90% of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and since 1953, have paid little or no company tax. Jim Killaly, 1996, 2010. Now why is that? Well, it goes back to 1953 and the so-called double taxation legislation that was introduced by liberal prime minister Menzies. He made sure that legislation, that foreign companies don’t have to pay company tax. Bob Hawke, the labour prime minister in 1987, passed the PRRT tax, Petroleum Rent Resources Tax. The largest companies in the world and the worst tax avoider in the world, Chevron, other multinationals, are not paying tax and the Australian government gets virtually nothing for the gas that they tap into in the Northwest shelf and send overseas. We’re the largest exporters of gas and we get the least for it in the world.

[Marcus Paul] There was some figure that I think we talked about recently, where in, I can’t remember, it might’ve been WA, there was a gas exploration venture that was being undertaken whereby 5.3 billion dollars, I think that was the figure, worth of gas was shipped off overseas. Our gas prices haven’t come down as a result of it but the company involved, I won’t name them, but the company involved, paid a paltry, 300 odd million dollars in tax compared to taking away five point odd billion dollars worth of our natural resources. How on earth, Malcolm, do we allow this to happen?

[Malcolm Roberts] Exactly Marcus. The Japanese government levies an import duty on Australian gas coming into Japan. The Japanese government makes three billion a year on taxing Australian gas. So, they get that income. We get bugger all. And that’s the fact, because both the liberal party and the labour party over many years, it’s not just a few, it’s decades, over many decades, have allowed this to occur. And they do that despite 90% of Australia’s large companies being foreign owned and paying little or no tax. And what that also means is that Australian companies that are working in this country have to pay 30%, their company tax. That means they’re immediately behind the eight ball when it comes to competing with these multinationals. So, it’s just completely unfair.

[Marcus Paul] All right, well, maybe that is a short term fix to tax foreign multinationals more appropriately. I mean, tax reform is difficult. We know that the liberal Howard government introduced GST in return for states dropping six taxes, yet all are still being levied, including in my opinion, the most ridiculous crippling tax of all, payroll tax. I mean, that hits employment and it penalises those taking the risk by setting up business and in fact, people, these businesses employ people. Why on earth are we penalising businesses for employing Australians?

[Malcolm Roberts] Exactly, Marcus. We all know, everybody knows, you don’t need to be well educated to understand that when you tax something, you get less of it. So, why are we taxing payroll? Because that’s a tax on employment. When you tax employment, you get less of it, but let’s have a look at some of the so-called tax reform in this country. As you said, in 1999, liberal prime minister Howard introduced the GST, in return for the states promising to drop six state taxes. Every one of those taxes is still levied. In 1985, Paul Keating first called for a GST, the labour treasurer at the time. He almost got it up and Bob Hawke went wobbly at the last minute and they dropped the GST. Later, despite being the first person to talk about a GST in this country, Paul Keating reversed his position to belt John Houston on the GST. And he won the unwinnable election.

[Marcus Paul] Yeah, of course.

[Malcolm Roberts] In 1998, there was a transaction tax proposed by somebody. Quite, quite good thinking going behind it. Peter Costello, the treasurer. He did a pretty good job in my opinion. Peter Costello, even he, when it looked like they could smash this politician over the transaction tax, he turned around, and even though he said earlier, that it was… Well it had quite a bit of merit and it looked good, he then used it to belt that politician. So, he trashed that opportunity. So, what the point is here is that both the parties attack someone else whenever they raise a system of proposed change for taxation. We all agree, right around the country, that the taxation system, it needs to be reformed completely around. It is the most damaging system in this country. Australians pay far too much tax, multinationals pay bugger all, but the point is this, every time someone puts forward a tax reform system, the party politics is played and it’s smashed. What we’re seeing is the liberal and labour and national parties too busy protecting themselves and they’re sacrificing the country to the worst and most destructive system in the country. What we need to do is to approach this in a far more effective sense, because we can’t continue as we are. So, what I would suggest is what we need to do is make sure we have agreement that the tax system has failed and must be changed. And then, instead of getting into the details, agree on the basic principles, things like fairness, equity, transparency, efficiency of taxation. Our taxation system is so inefficient. And then once the principles are established, out pops the solution in the form of a system. We’ve got to front up and be honest that this system is so bad at the moment and we’ve got to come up with a new way of addressing this politically.

[Marcus Paul] All right, Malcolm, good to have you on the programme as always. We’ll chat again next week.

[Malcolm Roberts] Look forward to it, Marcus. Thanks, mate.

[Marcus Paul] All right, One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts.

/by

PRESS RELEASE: New horizons for agricultural growth in north western Queensland

,

Senator Roberts has praised the vision and innovation of the regional mayors in the Flinders Basin north western Queensland in tackling issues that will keep their towns vibrant and attractive places to live.

Travelling west from Townsville to Mt Isa, Senator Roberts saw first-hand the agricultural potential of the black soil plains of the Flinders Region, and assessed the value of a Bradfield-type scheme with an aerial study of Hells Gate and the Tully, Herbert and Burdekin River catchment areas.

“After lengthy discussions with the mayors and CEOs of Mt Isa City and the Flinders (Hughenden), Richmond, McKinlay (Julia Creek) and Cloncurry councils, I was impressed with the many innovative water projects in each of these council areas,” Senator Roberts said.

“There is no doubt the Flinders black soil region offers rich opportunities for agricultural development, and importantly, this will complement the existing traditional industry of livestock production.

The area from Hughenden to Julia Creek and north are natural grasslands and have been grazed for 150 years, so there are no native title or vegetation management issues to address.”

With water and willing farmers cultivating around 60,000 hectares, these black soil plains could deliver more than $2 billion in agricultural output. 

“Seeing the potential in this area I asked the mayors whether a Bradfield-type scheme would bring the water they needed,” Senator Roberts said.

“The answer was a resounding no, as every year they watch vast volumes of water in the Flinders, Leichhardt, Cloncurry Rivers flow pass their towns and out to the gulf.

“Harvesting and storing that surplus water will have no adverse environmental impacts, yet will invigorate these communities with new industry.

“It is literally a case of just add water, and that is exactly what the Queensland State Government needs to do by allocating the overdue promised water licences for agricultural development,” he said.

During his listening tour, Senator Roberts visited an experimental sorghum and cotton farm north of Julia Creek, which is being run by an experienced Murray Darling Basin farmer.

 “It was an impressive sight to look closely at these crops, and with more development for local conditions Etta Plains is a showcase for the regions’ farming potential,” he said.

“The growth for our regional Queensland towns from horticulture and the auxiliary industries is very exciting and these councils deserve maximum support from the state and federal governments.”

/by

ANZAC Day: Lest We Forget

,

Last week I talked to Marcus Paul about ANZAC Day, the decision to tear up Victoria’s Chinese belt and road deal and how our politicians have no vision for this country. Transcript on my website: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/anzac-day-lest-we-forget/

Transcript

[Marcus] As we do each and every Thursday, we catch up with One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, G’day Malcolm, how are you?

[Malcolm] I’m well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Yeah good mate, good to talk to you. ANZAC day, a very important day on our calendar, probably one of the most important.

[Malcolm] Yes. And it really symbolises the forging of our nation, doesn’t it? Our nation officially began in 1901, but Gallipoli and ANZAC spirit was really the birthplace of Australia on the world stage.

[Marcus] Well, absolutely, and at least this year, there have been restrictions, or relaxation of COVID restrictions, which means that more and more people can take part, which is good news, but I didn’t mind the way we commemorated last year at the end of the driveway and stuff, I thought that was a really good way of personalising it for people in suburban Australia.

[Malcolm] Well, it was a way of participating, that’s for sure, but it wasn’t as good as ANZAC day. You know I’ve noticed in the last 30 years in particular, so many young kids now coming out and really celebrating and taking part. It means something to be part of that and belong to that community, that’s Australia now. So last year was a bit underplayed for me. I love ANZAC day.

[Marcus] Yeah. And you’ll be commemorating how this coming Sunday?

[Malcolm] We’ll be out at Dalby, which is a couple hundred kilometres west of Brisbane, we’ll do the dawn service there, and then we’ll go to another service in Toowoomba which you know, is a much larger town. And then we’ll go to the service there as well. And then I’ll be going to stay with my brother and sister-in-law for a little while with my wife, I’ll have the afternoon with them.

[Marcus] Lovely. Look, the Morrison government has torn up Victoria’s controversial Belt and Road agreement with the Chinese government, saying it falls foul of our national interest. It’s a move that will further inflame tensions between Canberra and Beijing. And while they’re at it, while Ms. Payne is flexing her newly-found muscle, can we perhaps ask for the Port of Darwin back?

[Malcolm] Oh, Marcus, you read my mind. Well, what about this, too? So it’s a good first step from the federal government to reclaim Victoria, but what about the restoration of our property rights? It was stolen from farmers by the Howard-Turnbull government in 1996, sorry, Turnbull wasn’t involved then, but 1996.

And the John Howard government went around the constitution and went directly to the states to steal these property rights, so the farmers wouldn’t get compensation, and the purpose? To comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. I am sick and tired of the federal government, Labour, and liberal, and nationals, all pushing the UN agenda, the Kyoto protocol, the Lima declaration, which savage manufacturing, the Paris agreement, on and on. We need to get our country back from the UN, and please let’s have our country back.

[Marcus] All right, tell me about this Western Australian pipeline.

[Malcolm] What an achievement that was. So Anzac day was the start of our nation on the world stage, but prior to that, even before our nation was formed in 1901, in 1896, the Western Australian premier was looking for permanent solutions to water supply in Eastern Goldfields. He commissioned Charles O’Connor, who was a competent and innovative engineer, to build a pipeline.

Now get this, this is what? 124 years ago 125 years ago one and a quarter centuries ago. It was to cover 566 kilometres from the coast, inland into Kalgoorlie, carry 23 million litres of water per day, over a lift, upward vertically at the dam site on the west coast, of 400 metres, 1400 feet. Amazing. It was the longest water supply pipeline in the world, and that’s still the case today. It was the first major pipeline in the world constructed of steel. It used more steel than any other structure in the world at the time, 70,000 tonnes.

And this O’Connor was a proven engineer, but small minded politicians ridiculed him and tried to kill it for political purposes, and they said it was too complex, would never work. Well mate, listen to some of these figures. The benefits of the pipeline were immediately apparent, and it costs two and a half million pounds, which in today’s money is 300-and-something million dollars. But in its first few years, it generated 25 million pounds worth of wealth, and today, it opens up 8 million acres of wheat cropping, that’s almost half of the nation’s wheat.

It has fine wool sheep, and mining, which was in decline before this pipeline was built in Kalgoorlie, it restarted again, and away it went, and in 2017, these are the only figures I’ve got, $11.1 billion of gold was produced in Western Australia, and much of that would have come from Kalgoorlie.

[Marcus] See why don’t we have this sort of vision today? Why are all the naysayers and objectors around, stopping this sort of vision for us to build? I mean, if we could build it back in 1896, this wonderful solution to water supply, why on earth can’t we do it in 2021?

[Malcolm] Well, vision Marcus, as you just pointed out. Vision is not about talking, and not about backstabbing, and not about putting petty agendas and personal egos and fears ahead. Vision is about a dream for something that could happen, and then having the guts to confront those fears, the political fears.

We don’t have politicians today, with very few exceptions, we don’t have politicians who will confront their fears, confront the naysayers, and stand up, and really do what’s needed for Australia. And in 100 years time or 200 years time. That’s what’s needed is politicians with courage to say what is needed.

[Marcus] Yep. Mate you don’t happen to know where this Indonesian submarine is, that’s gone missing off Bali, do you? For goodness sake?

[Malcolm] No, I don’t, but perhaps we could ask the CSIRO, because the CSIRO was in a joint venture with the Chinese government, to explore North, the coast between Australia and Papua New Guinea, can you imagine that? I’m serious!

[Marcus] I know. Talk about in our national interest! No, it’s not. Alright, mate. Good to have you on, we’ll chat next week.

[Malcolm] Same here, thanks Marcus. Enjoy the weekend, mate.

[Marcus] You too, all the best. Oh, there he is. One Nations’ Malcolm Roberts. Marcus Paul in the morning. 13 12 69, the open line number to have your say.

/by

Farmers and Regional Towns are struggling

, , ,

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

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

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

Let me know what you think.

Transcript

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

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

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

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

[Mike Ryan] Trevor, thanks for joining us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Trevor Cross] No worries. Thanks, Michael.

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

/by

Christine Holgate and Vaccination Bungle – 2SM with Marcus Paul

, ,

From last week on 2SM with Marcus Paul: why Christine Holgate was unfairly treated, how the government has bungled the vaccine rollout, the untapped potential of Queensland agriculture and more.

Transcript

[Marcus] G’day, Malcolm, how are you mate?

[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Well, I don’t have a $5,000 Cartier watch, do you?

[Malcolm] No, I don’t. And I’ll never buy one, but you know, that’s not the issue really at Australia Post. That’s what you’re talking about?

[Marcus] What is the issue, Malcolm? I mean, the whole thing in my mind, is really become a gender thing, which is a concern to me. Christine Holgate by all accounts, seems to be a pretty good operator, has she been unfairly punished here, do you think?

[Malcolm] Definitely there’s no doubt about that, Marcus. She did a remarkable job. She turned that, Australia Post around, from a big loss into, quite a substantial profit. And what surprised us, we were about to start holding the Government accountable about these Cartier watches.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] But we noticed that Angela Cramp, she’s the head of the licensed post office operators. You know, not all Australia Post, post offices are owned by the post office. They’re licensed out, to the licensed post office representatives. And Angela Cramp-

[Marcus] Franchisee’s, franchised.

[Malcolm] That’s it, thank you, thank you. So Angela Cramp jumped in strongly to support that and we thought, hang on, what’s going on here? Because we’ve worked very closely with the licensed post office operators and they’ve been really hard hit by, by Australia Post. What we found out, was that Christine Holgate, when I held her accountable in Senate estimates, when she first came on board, she actually took note of what I said.

And she followed up with Australia Post licenced post office operators and she helped them and started sorting out their problems. First time, in a long, long time, these guys have had any support. So they jumped in and supported Holgate, that alerted us, because we knew that that the LPOs weren’t in favour of the Australia Post executives normally.

And so then Pauline and I, both spoke with Holgate separately and then Pauline got the inquiry up, into what’s going on now after negotiating successfully with Labor, Greens and all the cross benchers. You just cannot treat people this way. I believe the Prime Minister is not telling the truth. Holgate is telling the truth. Holgate’s very competent, there are other issues here driving this.

The Prime Minister should apologise at the very least. And some of the statements from Australia Post, the Chairman of Australia Post and the ministers, just don’t add up. And I think the Prime Minister, if this keeps going the way it is, should resign, and you know at the very least Marcus, he must apologise. He must apologise.

[Marcus] Well, he doesn’t know how to say the word, sorry, Malcolm. We know that. He doesn’t take any responsibility for his actions. He likes to obfuscate. He likes to lay the blame elsewhere. He got fairly close yesterday by saying that he regrets any hurt, that Miss Holgate may well have felt, but he’s certainly not apologising.

[Malcolm] Yeah, exactly. And look, what does this say about the taxpayer funded empathy training? It’s gonna be a complete waste of time. The empathy training that the Liberal Nats have going on and what a lot of rubbish.

[Marcus] All right. Now, the vaccination rollout. Boy oh boy, you say it’s falling apart, mate?

[Malcolm] It is. There’s a critical thing here, that the Government has forgotten. It’s called informed consent. Before someone puts anything in my body, they need to get my consent. Now, the vaccine, there are two vaccines out there at the moment, the Astrazeneca and the Pfizer one.

We were told by the Chief Health Officer, that no one would know what vaccine was being distributed at which outlet, because they didn’t want people to come up and have a choice about the vaccine. I want this vaccine. I want that vaccine. That is completely unethical in my view. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is that they have rushed these vaccines. Both of them, they both have serious questions about them. Both, have bypassed some of the details in the testing procedures. The testing procedures have been accelerated, and now we’ve got problems. So, It’s the process here. The problem is the way the vaccine has been introduced, before proper trials.

[Marcus] All right.

[Malcolm] It’s a lack of data and there’s a lack of clear aims. And even the Minister for Health now, Greg hunt, has admitted that even with the vaccine, it won’t stop the restrictions. So what’s the point?

[Marcus] Fair enough. All right. Now, you’ve been out and about you’ve been in western Queensland, well, north and western Queensland. You’ve been to Townsville, Charters Towers, Hughenden, Richmond, Julia Creek, Cloncurry, You’re in Mt Isa as well. You’ve been looking at water infrastructure and potential for agriculture up there.

[Malcolm] Yes, and Marcus, what an amazing place this is. It’s untapped really. Big skies, big horizons, rich soil, plenty of sunlight, regular rain. And that’s what’s surprised us. The regular rain up here, at Richmond. And what’s really stunning up here, is that the local councils, the shire councils, have got off their backsides and started to stimulate thinking about irrigation projects, because they can turn this black soil and sunlight into bountiful production.

Richmond has now got, the Shire of Richmond, led by John Wharton, has got a project, that’ll cost a total of $210 million. Tiny amount, tiny amount of money. 8,000 hectares of irrigated land will come out of it. No dam, no dam whatsoever, just a diversion channel. Off flood seasons. ‘Cause the surprising thing is the rainfall is huge, but it comes at very short intervals and it’s very regular.

So they can basically get a diversion channel, take the flood water, harvest across the floodplains. So you’ve got no environmental impact of a dam and this whole area is buzzing. But what it needs is, is the government will, to actually get off their backsides and do it. The State Government is holding things back at the moment and the Federal Government is a bit lost. There seems to be a lack of vision in this country.

[Marcus] Well, I mean, look at the Murray-Darling basin. I mean, that’s been a complete and utter schmozzle. You would’ve thought lessons have been learned, mate?

[Malcolm] Well, you know, that’s really interesting. We’ve got the Murray-Darling basin has been decimated, by the Turnbull-Howard Water Act of 2007, which brought in the Murray-Darling basin authority. And it’s interesting. They changed from a highly successful, Murray-Darling basin commission in 2007, to the Murray-Darling basin authority.

That tells you what it’s about. The primary aims of the Murray-Darling basin of sorry of the Water Act in 2007, included the compliance with international agreements. What the hell are we doing that for, in our country? So they’ve made a mess of the Murray-Darling basin and it’s helped the corporates, destroyed farming communities, destroyed family farms.

And we’ve actually got people up here now, with a tonne of energy, from the northern New South Wales area of the Murray-Darling basin, and they’re making a go of things up here and just getting in and rolling up their sleeves and tearing into it. They’re doing a wonderful job.

[Marcus] Good to hear, Malcolm and great to have you on the programme as always. We’ll talk again next week.

[Malcolm] Thank you very much, Marcus. Have a good week mate.

[Marcus] My pleasure, you too mate. There he is, One nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts. Somebody sent me a note yesterday. Marcus, “Why just, why oh why,” “do you speak to people like Malcolm and Pauline” “and also Mark Latham?” Well Malcolm Robert’s, just explained it perfectly this morning.

I mean he and Pauline Hanson, spoke to Christine Holgate initially, when she took on the job at Australia Post and she took their advice, turned things around. You know, these people, do hold the balance of power. Quite often, they are voting and the government depends on their votes, to get important legislation across the line.

So I would argue they’re actually, some of the most important politicians to speak to on the programme, because ultimately they have to weigh everything up. They have to listen to all sides of politics and then decide which way they want to go. That’s why we talk to people like Malcolm Roberts.

/by