During its passage through parliament, the government’s Water Amendment Bill 2023 was subjected to almost 70 amendments. Deals were being made on the run. Nobody has a clear idea of how this massively amended Bill will affect farming, communities or the environment.
The Murray Darling Basin Plan can’t be changed without the consent of every State Premier. This government failed to follow that step, not only for the bill but also for these amendments that were introduced at the last minute. The Bill is a mess, the process is a mess, and it will leave a mess behind it.
The motion I put forward here is to refer the Bill to the relevant committee to try and make sense of the changes and see what else needs to be done to make the changes workable. The issue of the Commonwealth buying back water from a State that opposes water buybacks also needs to be sorted.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, One Nation continues to support a fair outcome for all those in the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland and across the connected river system. The government last week advanced a bill that evolved drastically as it passed through Senate debate—some would say catastrophically through Senate debate. First, the Greens demanded changes for their support. Then Senator Van, Senator Thorpe and Senator Pocock added some tinsel for their respective ideologies. Much like a Christmas tree that the whole family decorated, it looks a bit crook. In fact, I would suggest that nobody knows how the bill is going to actually work.
The council of water ministers dealt with the bill in August this year and failed to issue a communique, which is a record of proceedings that would ordinarily detail any specific approval or rejection of suggested changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012. A communique is available on their website for every meeting, going back years, except for August. When I requested it, Assistant Minister McAllister failed to provide it, after first saying it was available. Instead, the federal water minister, Tania Plibersek, put out a political statement that an agreement was made between the federal, New South Wales, South Australian, Queensland and Australian Capital Territory governments to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. Firstly, the ACT is not a state. It is not a voting signatory to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, so the so-called agreement reached was only between three of the required four states. Secondly, what was the agreement? I hear you saying an agreement was reached, yet no proof of that has been posted, beyond the minister’s statement.
Did New South Wales sign on to allow as much as 700 megalitres of buybacks from New South Wales farmers, or not? New South Wales Premier Minns said in a recent press release that he did not sign off on water buybacks and instead only signed off on $700 million in federal money for water projects. Victoria has not agreed to this legislation and is not a party to the buybacks. They’ve made that abundantly clear.
South Australia has not been honest with their farmers. I have not heard a word about the buybacks being planned from South Australian irrigators. I hear you say, ‘Hang on just a minute; the water is for South Australia.’ That’s true. The government is about to buy back water for South Australian river flow from South Australia. Their irrigators can wave to their water as it flows out to sea. I call upon the South Australian Premier, Peter Malinauskas, to answer a simple question: how much water did you agree could be purchased from South Australian farmers in that August meeting? How much, Premier? I’m hearing as much as 40 gigalitres is intended to be purchased from South Australia, which only has an irrigation pool of 400 gigalitres. That’s 10 per cent.
Queensland Premier Palaszczuk has not said a word about water buybacks. With an election coming up next year, the farming community should know what the Premier has just done to them. But they don’t know; she won’t tell them. I ask the Queensland Premier to be honest and to come clean: how much Queensland water did you agree to be bought back into Queensland? I understand the game that all the premiers except Victoria’s are playing: ‘Don’t talk about water buybacks. Blame the federal government. Defend Labor’s vote against the Greens and the teals. Get re-elected. Shhhh!’ It’s such a simple plan—except that it breaches the rules around the operation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan itself. All state premiers must sign off to every change. The minute one state is out of something like water buybacks, the other states have to pick up the slack.
My state of Queensland loses more water and without a further hollowing out of the bush. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers Bill) 2023 was heavily amended—and many of us say catastrophically amended. In the House of Representatives the water amendment had five crossbench and 31 government amendments. In the Senate the bill had a haphazard mishmash of 20 government amendments. That’s a total of 51 government amendments to a bill that was introduced to parliament, plus five in the Senate from the Greens and eight from the crossbench. That’s 20 amendments to the bill in the Senate plus 31 in the House of Reps, reflecting yet another bill brought into the Senate without adequate thought and becoming a scrambled me due to opportunistic trading and deals.
This is no way to govern our country. It is shoddy governance. It is dishonest governance. And who pays? It is farmers, farming families, rural communities, regional Australia—everyone and anyone who eats. The reason there were so many amendments, including government amendments, is that the process of consultation was a complete farce. The government consulted with everyone they knew who would agree with them, and that was it. Irrigators in rural communities were ignored. The bill was pushed through a committee that the government controlled and was sent for a vote when it was so full of holes—51 holes that the government recognised. So the parliamentary process tried. The question remains: did we fix it? Did the premiers approve all these amendments? The amendments could not possibly have been approved. The Senate barely had time to read them. The premiers have most notably not even seen the amendments. The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee reported on what has become a very different bill. The premiers voted on a different bill—a bill they couldn’t agree on, and they haven’t seen the latest version.
At the very least, we need to see how these amendments fit together and what the impact of these amendments will be on the Murray-Darling Basin, on the environment and on the communities in the basin. Potential harm from the bill needs to be detected now and plans for mitigation canvassed immediately. We need to determine exactly what the rules around changes to the plan are so that amendments are done correctly next time. We need to assess what happens when the federal government starts buying up water in Victoria and the Victorian government rejects or objects. This legislation may be a High Court challenge waiting to happen.
As a new senator back in 2017, when I was in south-west Queensland in the town of St George in the Balonne shire I heard firsthand of the enormous damage to Queensland and northern New South Wales communities. As a result of that, Senator Pauline Hanson and I travelled the Murray from Albury to the Murray mouth, listening to regional communities in southern New South Wales, northern Victoria and South Australia. Later, when I returned to the Senate in 2019, I flew over the whole basin, listening closely to farmers, to communities and to people who had an argument for the environment. I then crossed the basin four times from east to west listening—in Queensland, northern New South Wales, central New South Wales, southern New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, including the regions of South Australia. We developed a credible water policy based on science and people’s needs, environmental needs and national needs.
The late John Bristow was a world-renowned expert on water. He visited our country in 2007—I’ve read a paper he published on it—and he declared that we had the best water management in the world. He was an international water expert, and he said we had the best water management. Later, in 2007, John Howard as Prime Minister and Malcolm Turnbull as water minister introduced the Water Act 2007. As has been repeated four or five times now, the aims of the Water Act are: to include compliance with international agreements—what the hell has that got to do with our federal legislation?—and to change the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. That destroyed cooperation that had successfully managed the basin with cooperation between states and the Commonwealth. Commonwealth departments started to dictate and started to lie. John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull’s Water Act separated water allocations from land ownership—a catastrophe that has to be corrected.
The Water Act, to its credit, required a register of water trades, yet the Liberal-National and Labor parties have refused to install a water registry, even though it’s required by the legislation known as the Water Act. I moved an amendment to require a water register to be developed. It was passed in the Senate and rejected in the lower house by the Liberals, Nationals and Labor Party.
We now see that another feature of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is that it led to contradictions of science and nature. It completely reversed the science. This is a mess due to globalist policies, working through the Greens—the Howard-Turnbull Water Act of 2007. On his next visit to Australia in 2011, John Bristow proclaimed that Australia had slumped to the worst—the world’s worst—water management for one reason: politically driven policy. He belled the culprit. The people in this parliament, the federal parliament, at federal level.
While mindful of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan’s catastrophic foundation, for now, as a result of the catastrophic mish-mash of the latest legislation changes last week, we need to scrutinise the latest legislation while keeping in the back of our minds the mess that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is. Only a committee inquiry can sort this out and ensure such a monumental, haphazard, dishonest change to a 10-year-old plan is the right thing to do. I move:
That the Senate notes that:
the water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023 was passed with substantial amendments; and
the amendments were not reviewed by a committee and have not been approved by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council.
That the following matters relating to the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023 be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for review and report by the 30 March 2024:
the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made;
matters relating to the approval of the amendments by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council; and
https://img.youtube.com/vi/-rEHAQ2JRUg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-12-12 10:03:132023-12-12 10:03:19Making Sense of the Murray-Darling Basin Water Amendment Bill
When the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) allocates water to farmers at the start of the season, they do it based on a very conservative ‘extreme dry’ scenario.
This means farmers are allocated far less water then they should be. If the rainfall for the following season is above the extreme dry scenario (it very frequently is) the MDBA will allocate excess water to the farmers, but at the end of the season.
This end of season allocation is nearly useless to farmers as they need certainty from the start to be able to plant the amount of crops to match their water allocation. The MDBA seem to think they have a crystal ball and predict every year will be a drought. Farmers miss out, crops aren’t planted, small communities are slowly destroyed and less Australian grown food is on our shelves as a result.
MDBA questioning part 1: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/menindee-lakes-sdl-water-acquisitions-and-lock-zero-mdba-part-1/
MDBA questioning part 2: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-did-the-government-vote-against-a-water-trading-register-mdba-part-2/
Transcript
[CHAIR] Senator Roberts, I believe you have one question before we release the agency.
[Senator Roberts] Mr Reynolds, you gave us a statement here at Senate estimates on 28 May 2021, and I’ll just read from that:
Finally, the March rain has delivered a more positive forecast for the next irrigation year compared to the same time last year. Indicative opening allocations for next year under a conservative extreme dry scenario are …
Then you gave us the releases. In fact, the rain in that period was well above average, with some areas experiencing record falls. This is from your website. Even the area in red is now blue. I’m not blaming you for the weather forecast, by the way. Dam levels are from 92 per cent. It seems that farmers always start with minimal water allocations and then later, after the season, farmers get offered some more that farmers can’t use. So farmers have missed an opportunity to make more money. Surely this has to stop. Who provided the ‘extreme dry’ scenario? When was it changed to ‘pouring down’, as in this year? Did the use of the ‘extreme dry’ scenario cause farmers to lose early season water allocations?
[Mr Reynolds] No, it doesn’t. When we do our analysis, we model a range of scenarios. I don’t recall exactly the words in that statement, but I would have quoted from one of those scenarios, which was extreme dry—very conservative. States, under their allocation frameworks, provide the allocation to irrigators. The MDBA’s role is to advise the states on the volume of water they might expect to have under a range of scenarios. States adopt a conservative approach to allocating water to make sure they don’t over-allocate early in the season and are unable to deliver it later in the season—that is a much poorer outcome. When the MDBA provides advice to the states on the water they might have available, we provide them a range of scenarios, not just the extreme dry, and they work within their own allocation framework on where they actually make an allocation decision.
[Senator Roberts] On whose advice do you base that consideration?
[Mr Reynolds] The MDBA does the statistical analysis of projected inflows for the season and develops those estimates of the volumes of water that might be available to each of the states, applying the water sharing arrangements that are specified under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The states then use their allocation frameworks and their assessment of the appropriate level of risk in making allocation decisions.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you. Chair, we understand that there was a discussion about Yanco, which I hadn’t intended asking questions about. We’re going to evaluate the Yanco decision, because it is significant to us, but I’m not going to ask questions.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/st-s_90Uxm4/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:08:532022-03-04 11:12:36Farmers always left high and dry by water allocations – MDBA Part 3
The Murray Darling Basin plan has been a disaster for regional communities. Overwhelming complexity, water being flushed out to sea and bureaucrats thinking they know better than everyone else have caused enormous damage.
Despite the evidence, the government and MDBA refuse to take responsibility for the mess they’ve made.
MDBA questioning part 2: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-did-the-government-vote-against-a-water-trading-register-mdba-part-2/
MDBA questioning part 3: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/farmers-always-left-high-and-dry-by-water-allocations-mdba-part-3/
Transcript
CHAIR: Alright; thank you. Senator Roberts, over to you.
Senator Roberts: Mr Taylor, I’d like to reference an exchange we had at a previous estimates regarding Menindee Lakes. I’ll quote from Hansard. I said:
So, Menindee Lakes is a vital component of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
You said:
It’s a vital component of our environmental management of the system.
Then I said:
And it’ll stay there.
You said:
And we’re actually getting those golden perch out of that system, connected through the Great Darling Anabranch, down into the Murray and distributing those fish. They become callop, as they’re called in South Australia, and they travel thousands of kilometres over their life. So, this is a critical part of what we’re doing.
That was not an answer to my question. You dodged my question, so let me try again. Will the Murray-Darling Basin Authority keep the Menindee Lakes as an environmentally important wetland having the same area as it currently has, including water storage with the current capacity, with the level, of course, decided by basin inflows? This is Queensland water, and we’d like to see it used properly.
Mr Taylor : Not sure I’m in a position to answer on behalf of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of feature plans and management. I think the other thing is that the Menindee system is a jointly managed lake and water resource, jointly managed between New South Wales, the Commonwealth, South Australia and Victoria. So I’m not in a position to talk about—
Senator Roberts: Is anyone from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority who could answer that question here?
Ms Connell : Mr Reynolds.
Senator Roberts: Will Menindee stay as it is, a vital part of the environment?
Mr Reynolds : As discussed earlier, New South Wales is scoping, or rescoping, the Menindee project, now called the Better Baaka project. That anticipates changes to the Menindee infrastructure and the operating rules for it. As departmental colleagues explained earlier, we’re yet to have a scope of that project brought forward by the New South Wales government. I can’t give you the assurance that you’ve asked for because that rescope project will inevitably change arrangements at Menindee Lakes. I think the proposal for the project is to look at how things can be done differently. If the project proceeds, then I think the circumstance at Menindee will be different to what they’ve been in the past.
Senator Roberts: So you can’t give me—
Ms Connell : It will continue to be subject to water resource plans and water sharing plans which will contain requirements in relation to environmental measures and environmental outcomes.
Mr Reynolds : Absolutely. The project in terms of its development will have to consider environmental impacts and benefits that can be achieved ultimately, but, until we see the scope of the works, I can’t advise on what the changes on the Menindee arrangements would be.
Senator Roberts: Setting aside the sustainable diversion limit acquisitions currently underway, how much water is still required to complete the sustainable diversion limit acquisitions? I’d like a figure. Secondly, how much is required to complete water acquisition, the baseline diversion limits?
Ms Connell : We addressed some of those questions this morning. The 605 sustainable diversion limit adjustment measure program is made up of about 36 projects for which a gigalitre component was identified when those projects were conceived. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will go through a process we refer to as reconciliation in the lead-up to 1 July 2024, and I’ll let Mr Reynolds talk you through that.
Senator Roberts: Okay.
Ms Connell : Earlier this morning we provided an update on progress towards the 450 in terms of current entitlement holdings that are with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, projects that are contracted and projects we are in discussions with states over.
Mr Reynolds : In terms of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism reconciliation process, the authority is required to take a decision in December 2023 as to whether or not a reconciliation is required. That decision can’t be taken earlier than that, because states are able to advise notifications to modifications of projects up until that point in time. So we won’t have clarity about what the package of works looks like until that point in time. If, on the basis of our understanding of the projects, their progress and the condition they’re likely to be in in June 2024, the authority determines that the adjustment amount is likely to be different than what was determined in the original decision, we will undertake a reconciliation. We will assess the projects as they are notified at the end of December 2023 and make an assessment of the volume of water, or the offset that they will achieve at that point in time.
Senator Roberts: You have a document on the website of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority entitled ‘Progress on Water Recovery’. Under the heading ‘Summary of surface water recovery progress’ it states:
Following the amendments to the Basin Plan, the overall target for water recovery is 2,075 GL/y plus 450 GL/y of efficiency measures by 2024.
That’s 2,525 in total. And then, on the third page, under the heading ‘Total water recovery still required’ it is just 46 gigalitres.
Ms Connell : We addressed those figures earlier this morning as well. The gap bridging target under the Basin Plan is 2,075 gigalitres—2,100, and I think five gigalitres have been recovered and are held by way of entitlements with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. So 98 per cent of the target has been reached, but there remain about 46 gigalitres across the basin that need to be recovered from different water resource plan areas.
Senator Roberts: The other comment Mr Reynolds has already covered, so thank you for that. Before I move on, how much water is required to complete the baseline diversion limits, the up-water?
Ms Connell : I guess there are three overall programs. There’s the water recovery target of 2,075 gigalitres, so there’s 46 gigalitres still to go there. Then there is the 450 up-water program, as it is known, which I referred to earlier in terms of what’s being delivered, what’s contracted and discussions we’re having with states. Then the third program is the 605 sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism program, which Mr Reynolds was discussing in terms of the reconciliation process that happens in 2024. There are 36 projects which go to make up that program of work that South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have to deliver, and the authority will look at that program of works at the end of next year to determine whether reconciliation needs to happen to identify whether the 605 will be met or what component of it will be met.
Senator Roberts: As I’ve discussed before with Mr Glyde and Mr Reynolds and also the previous water commissioner, it’s a very complex issue, isn’t it? The whole thing is very complex, with many variables and a lot of variation.
Ms Connell : There are some key, major complex areas of work. The Basin Plan is a significant water reform, and there are some complex components, as you would expect in a system, I think, where there are 20 surface water areas and about 13 groundwater systems.
Senator Roberts: Then we have a naturally variable climate. The north varies considerably, in a different way from the south. So I would raise that for the future. Turning to the south-east drains SDL acquisition, Mr Reynolds, a reminder of your answer at the last estimates:
The water from the south-east drains has been put forward by the South Australian government as an SDL adjustment mechanism project. So the water that comes from the south-east drains into the southern lagoon will be accounted for through that process.
That means it will be counted as SDL. How much water is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority counting against the remaining SDL target for the south-east drains restoration flow?
Mr Reynolds : As we’ve explained previously, the assignment of individual volumes to projects in terms of the adjustment mechanism can only be an estimate, because the whole package of projects is modelled as a whole, and they interact with one another. We have made a range of estimates against individual projects. I will see if I can get the number for that particular project. I don’t think I have it in my papers here. I will have to get someone to provide that to me, but I will provide it this morning.
Senator Roberts: I would be very interested to see that number. I’m wondering if we’ve just found some more water.
Mr Reynolds : Well, the south-east drains project is part of the adjustment mechanism, so it’s been accounted for.
Senator Roberts: It is my view that this is a significant unaccountable flow—it hasn’t been to date—and may provide a substantial part of the remaining SDL acquisition that can both take the pressure off farmers elsewhere in the basin while restoring the amazing Coorong wetland and moderating extreme salination in Lake Albert by flushing from the south-east, not from the north-west; from the north-west is not really flushing. Have you the south-east inflows? I think the answer was ‘no’ in the last Senate estimates in October. Have you modelled the south-east inflows, both aquifer and surface flow? How much water is available? How much can be redirected—and this is really important—without interfering with agricultural production?
Mr Reynolds : We haven’t modelled that directly. The South Australian government manages that part of the system. We have consulted with them about the volumes. There’s not a direct estimate available of the total flow from the south-east drains, including through the groundwater systems into the Coorong. The operation of the south-east drains does provide water back to the southern lagoon in the Coorong, and that scheme has been developed and the operating rules have been developed to achieve that. There are requirements to manage the flows through the south-east drains. It is drainage from agricultural land. It does carry a nutrient load. There are particular management challenges with that water. So part of the south-east drainage scheme passes water through wetlands and the like to remove nutrient loads from that water before it enters the Coorong. If that’s not done, there are undesirable ecological impacts in the Coorong itself. That limits somewhat the volume of water that comes from the south-east drains. The South Australian government is continuing to work through those issues.
Senator Roberts: As I understand it, the drains are made by humans? They’re not natural and they take up a significant quantity of water, straight to the ocean.
Mr Reynolds : The area that’s been drained naturally was a low-lying marshy area, and water tended to lie in that area. Some of it would have seeped through groundwater systems to the sea. Some of it would have made its way to the Coorong. The drains are man-made structures that have taken water from that area and dried it out and made it more productive as an agricultural area.
Senator Roberts: I’ve been there and seen those drains. They’re definitely man-made. There is a belief that there’s a significant amount of water to be recaptured and sent to the Coorong.
Mr Reynolds : And water is being captured through that system and does flow to the Coorong. I think from memory it’s in the order of 26 gigalitres, on average. Obviously it would change with seasonal conditions. In wet years it will be more; in drier years it would be less. But it’s of that order.
Senator Roberts: My understanding is there’s a lot more water to be captured than that.
Mr Reynolds : I think the South Australian government clearly has an interest in trying to improve the health of the Coorong. They’ve undertaken an enormous amount of work in that region to do that. I’m sure they’re examining whether or not it would be beneficial to take more water from that region if it’s possible to do so, for that purpose.
Senator Roberts: So the Coorong problem has been man-made, not by the rest of the basin, but by diversion of water that used to go through the Coorong straight to the ocean? I’m not being critical, because in those days they were trying to look after their narrow scope. That’s something that, to return the environment to its natural state, would require a lot of water to go back to the Coorong and keep it clean.
Mr Reynolds : There are obviously significant volumes of water diverted from the basin, which has reduced the volume of water that reaches the end of the system, particularly coming down the Murray. Part of the challenge is to address some of those issues. To get back to the natural balance of what happened in the Coorong before river regulation would require all of the water that’s subsequently been diverted to be returned to the environment. No-one is proposing to do that. We’re looking for alternative solutions and alternative balances.
Senator Roberts: Shouldn’t that south-east portion be counted as part of the basin? You just said water is diverted from the basin, but it’s not included in the basin yet?
Mr Reynolds : I’m sorry; when I said that I meant water is diverted from upstream right across the basin. Very significant volumes are diverted.
Senator Roberts: This water’s going straight to the ocean, and doing damage by not going through the Coorong.
Mr Reynolds : I think the benefits that can be provided to the Coorong, by diverting some water from the south-east drains, are being realised through the project that’s been implemented. I’m sure the South Australian government and others will continue to examine where additional benefits might be able to be accrued. Significant money from the Commonwealth government has gone to the Goyder Institute. I think $8 million has been committed to examine options and other interventions that might be possible around the Coorong, Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth. That could include activities within the south-east drain system, although that has been explored fairly extensively already.
Senator Roberts: It’s very complex, and it’s made even more complicated by the politics involved at the state and federal levels. We will end it there for now.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but could you make this your last question? Sorry, Senator Roberts! We knew what was going on.
Senator Ruston :They don’t look anything alike.
CHAIR: They don’t.
Senator Roberts: I don’t know who you’re insulting the most. That was my last question.
CHAIR: Make this your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Concerning Lock Zero, in the last estimates, you spoke about engineering challenges and other issues, and you said, ‘Lock Zero was examined in some detail.’ If salt water is used in the Lower Lakes to protect against sulphur emissions—and that would be a one-in-100-year type drought; it’s an absolute last resort—then suddenly we will be wishing we’d built Lock Zero, won’t we? Doesn’t the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or the department have documentation on Lock Zero? Your comment ‘examined in some detail’ suggests such documentation exists. It seems like too significant a project not to have some formal process underway.
Mr Reynolds : During the millennium drought, Lock Zero was considered as to whether or not it would be an arrangement that would help protect the Lower Lakes. Part of that was looking at what flow would be required past Lock Zero to ensure that the Lower Lakes retained their ecological character. There is significant concern that if the flow of fresh water to the Lower Lakes was terminated, and if just sea water was allowed in, that would progressively concentrate through evaporation and become hypersaline, and so the Lower Lakes would not be a natural estuary.
Senator Roberts: It’s not natural at the moment, with the barrage, is it?
Mr Reynolds : No, but the Lower Lakes naturally would have had a much larger volume of fresh water flowing to the Lower Lakes, to the end of the system. We take a lot of water out upstream for irrigation and other productive purposes, and so the natural balance of mixing of fresh and salt water at the Lower Lakes cannot be reinstated unless there’s a lot more water coming down the river system. Building Lock Zero does not alleviate that issue.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/NMcFtd7qQbE/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:05:222022-03-04 11:15:54Menindee Lakes, SDL water acquisitions and Lock Zero – MDBA Part 1
Speculative water trading is a blight on our country. Even still, the Water Act 2007 specified that a transparent, public register of water trades should be established. 15 years later, we still have no public register.
The most recent attempt to establish a public register, my amendment to the Water Act, was voted down by the Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The question is, what have they got to hide?
MDBA questioning part 1: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/menindee-lakes-sdl-water-acquisitions-and-lock-zero-mdba-part-1/
MDBA questioning part 3: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/farmers-always-left-high-and-dry-by-water-allocations-mdba-part-3/
Transcript
[CHAIR] Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts] Mr Reynolds, as a senator for Queensland, I have to cover many issues and, although I’ve travelled the entire Murray-Darling Basin, have overflown it and crisscrossed it many times, in listening to people I just can’t keep all the acronyms and numbers at hand. I just can’t keep them in my head. Fortunately, we have many farmers who watch these Senate estimates sessions in particular and they let me know when I’ve missed the details, and they’re excellent auditors. They know, from being on the ground, when I’m getting nonanswers. They tell me, and they’re blunt auditors. It seems to me that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is now avoiding the numbers for both acquisition and total targets. The Murray-Darling Basin—and Senator Patrick knows this—is all about numbers. The plan has reduced farmers’ businesses, rural communities and Australia’s agricultural capacity to a set of water numbers, supposedly, for the environment. Getting those numbers is like pulling teeth, and I welcome Senator Patrick’s partial success on the 605 earlier. For the rural community watching this at home to get a hint for the future, I’d like to ask again. I’m asking for three simple numbers. How much water has the government acquired so far under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? How much is under acquisition? How much will the shortfall be against the plan in the absence of further projects, and where do you intend to get that water from? The third question was two combined.
[Senator Davey] Senator Roberts, do you mind if I throw one in as well to complement yours? From the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, how much actual wet stuff allocation do you have this year? There’s the difference between the entitlements you have, but this year the allocations may be over the 2,750 gigalitre rule. Who knows?
[Senator Patrick] And the costs associated with each of those [inaudible] too.
[Senator Davey] We want to know everything!
[Senator Roberts] We do.
[Ms Connell] I’ve lost track of the question! I’ll just provide the headline numbers, and then I’ll ask Mr Taylor to come to the table and talk to what he has available in this water year. In terms of surface water recovery, as I said before the break, 2,106 gigalitres of surface water has been recovered and is now held in entitlements by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. In relation to groundwater, 35.3 gigalitres has been recovered. In relation to the 450, two gigalitres in entitlements have been returned to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. We have another 16.4 under contract, and we are discussing arrangements in relation to about another 10 to 15 gigalitres with the states. In relation to the 605 gigalitres, the concept of that program of works is to—in lieu of 605 gigalitres being recovered from the consumptive irrigation pool, there are a suite of 36 projects which deliver environmental benefits in lieu of that. The framework under the Basin Plan requires the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to have a look at the end of next year at the progress of those environmental projects and the extent to which they will contribute, from an environmental measure, towards the 605. It is quite a complex concept.
[Senator Roberts] It’s very complex.
[Ms Connell] Yes. I do appreciate that. In terms of the current holdings that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has to utilise this year, I’ll pass to Mr Taylor.
[Mr Taylor] This year, we have new allocations, up to 31 December, of 2,054 gigalitres. Up to the end of that same six-month period we have used 1,038. So we’ve used about half our water for this year at halfway through the year.
[Senator Davey] How much did you carry over from the previous year?
[Mr Taylor] The previous year’s carryover was 738 gigalitres.
[Senator Davey] That would have made available this year 2,7—
[Mr Taylor] 85.
[Senator Davey] Thank you.
[Ms Connell] I will just note that the department does have a webpage that sets out these water recovery targets, so we’d be happy to provide you with that information.
[Senator Roberts] We will come asking if we need more. Minister, the South Australian water storage is outside of South Australia—
[Senator Ruston] Yes, for geological reasons.
[Senator Roberts] We’re not complaining about that. South Australia’s a valid part of the plan. This is a national plan that includes—
[Senator Ruston] Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. We’re very delighted that you would think that.
[Senator Roberts] While we’re concerned about wasting our water, we’re not concerned about supplying South Australia and Adelaide, in particular, with water—
[Senator Patrick] It’s not Queensland’s water [inaudible].
[Senator Roberts] Well, we can argue that—
[Senator Patrick] It’s national water.
[CHAIR] Let’s not get into that.
[Senator Roberts] I’m not interested in getting into that. I’m just saying that South Australia has a right to that water. It’s longstanding.
[Senator Ruston] Everybody in the Murray-Darling Basin has a right. We can go into a discussion about ‘riparian right’ and the like but the plan outlines that this is a shared resource that has to be maximised to the benefit of all people in Australia.
[Senator Roberts] We want to protect the South Australians but we also want to protect the environment and we want to protect all the other stakeholders. It gets messy. It’s had a long history; some argue it is ingrained in our federation. South Australian water storage is outside South Australia, at Dartmouth, which South Australia partly funded, Lake Victoria and Menindee Lakes. Menindee Lakes has held water eight years out of 10. Even though government raised the natural banks a little to create a larger storage, Menindee has been a natural wetland since before Western settlement. Menindee stored South Australian water and local—
[Senator Ruston] They’re ephemeral, aren’t they?
[Senator Roberts] You could argue that, but they have stored water eight years out of 10. Menindee stores South Australian water and local irrigation water. While that water is there it sustains the amazing wetland around Menindee. And that has developed to counter natural climate variability. In Australia, the climate is more variable than in probably any other continent. But we wonder why a frog near a coalmine is an environmental matter of national significance yet 47,000 hectares of wetland is not. With 220,000 bird movements a year, it is a national treasure. And now the testimony in this place is that the state and federal governments are going to murder Menindee. The Murray-Darling Basin is murdering an environmental treasure to come up with water to meet environmental targets. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
[Senator Ruston] I don’t think there would be anybody else in the room who would agree with your term ‘murder Menindee’. That is a highly emotive way of describing how, collectively, everybody is trying to work together to engineer a solution to ensure the long-term sustainability of the river system whilst dealing with the social and economic implications of water recovery and the like that minimises any detrimental impacts. The sole purpose of the plan was to protect the amazing riverine environment, so I cannot accept your terminology around what’s happening at Menindee. At the moment, we do not have the submission back from the New South Wales government in relation to the proposal for activities at Menindee. Until we can actually see that, I don’t know that anyone could be making the kind of assessment you’re making. I acknowledge that you accept that the plan is for all Australians, particularly all those who live in the basin, but you are picking on one particular component of it and suggesting that it is environmental vandalism when at this stage we don’t really have any clarity around what is going on there. We need to be really careful that we don’t compare what happened prior to the development of the river system and what is happening now. There has been so much intervention along the river—through dams, locks, weirs and all sorts of infrastructure, including the urban build-up in towns—that it’s almost impossible for us to do anything apart from assess what’s before us at the moment. I would counsel against talking about what Menindee Lakes used to be like and what the Lower Lakes used to be like because so much has changed in the years since irrigation has occurred along the river. So we need to manage what is before us now.
[Senator Roberts] I accept that. At the same time, a fundamental target for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been to restore the Coorong, and that cannot be restored while we’re avoiding the science. But let’s move on to something else—
[Senator Ruston] It’s really about the words that you use. We seek for the Coorong to be healthy. Does that restore it under the true definition of the word ‘restore?’ I would suggest that that is very difficult. I mean, the barrages are there. They weren’t there.
[Senator Roberts] The barrages are there. The drains are there.
[Senator Ruston] Yes. When we talk about ‘restoring’, what we want to see is a healthy Coorong, a healthy Murray-Darling Basin system. We want to see environmental assets protected. But we also want to protect the river communities because they are such an important part of the economy of Australia and all the people who are supported by it. I think we need to be careful of the words we use because we don’t want to give the impression that somehow we’re going to turn the river system back to exactly what it looked like before there was any intervention. What we’re seeking to do is make sure the environmental outcomes are good.
[Senator Roberts] One thing that is very frustrating in the parliament is that so few decisions are made on data and science. They’re made on emotions, whims and looking after vested interests. You said everyone wants to protect the environment. I’ll get onto more of that in other questions. Minister, I have trust for you, so I’m not having a go at you. I’m having a go at several governments in the past and possibly this government. I don’t have much faith in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan because it’s not based on data. We don’t measure much of the river system, yet we’re allocating water. An ABC report was entitled ‘Basin states agree to support ACCC Murray-Darling Basin water market reforms to regulate brokers and market behaviour’. Last year when I moved an amendment to force the water trading register into life, which is a requirement of the Water Act 2007—the one that the Murray-Darling Basin has been required to produce since then—the Liberals, Nationals and Labor voted against it. I was told there was no need for a water trading register. It’s just speculation. There is no profiteering and no need for a register of water trading. What changed so that the states are now taking action?
[Senator Ruston] I’m not sure that I agree with the fact that the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party last year thought there was no need for—
[Senator Roberts] They voted against the amendment to bring in the water register.
[Senator Ruston] Yes, but there were a number of other complex technicalities around what was being proposed at the time, so I don’t think you can naturally jump to the conclusion that the government or the opposition didn’t believe that water regulation could potentially improve the operation of the river systems and improve the operation of how water traded. I think possibly it was that the mechanism by which you were proposing to do it was not something that we were necessarily agreeing to. But I’m happy to take that on notice and get you some more information because I have to say I can’t remember exactly.
[Senator O’Neill] Senator Ruston, just before you continue. Is there any chance that the document Senator Roberts was referring to could be tabled?
[Senator Ruston] That’s just a media story, isn’t it, Senator?
[Senator Roberts] Yes, this is a media story from the ABC. They’re talking about a mandatory code of conduct.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, would you like to have that tabled so others can refer to it?
[Senator Roberts] Yes.
CHAIR: Thank you.
[Senator Roberts] It just seems like this code of conduct is a way to smokescreen their reluctance to have a water trading register. It’s a way of avoiding the issue.
[Senator Ruston] I might speak with the secretary. In terms of the ACCC review and implementation I wonder if you could give Senator Roberts a bit of an update about where that’s at. We could see if in any way you can alleviate some of the concerns he appears to have.
[Ms Connell] Water trade and water markets are principally the responsibility of state jurisdictions at the moment, so states and the ACT are responsible for having and maintaining water registers. Each of them does have a register in place. In terms of the media release you’re referring to, it was to indicate that the water market reform process had been set up. Minister Pitt announced last year that he would appoint a principal adviser. Mr Daryl Quinlivan has been appointed to work with states to take what is a very significant report by the ACCC—I think it goes to about 700 pages and makes a broad range of recommendations—
[Senator Roberts] It has some serious concerns.
[Ms Connell] That’s right. Mr Quinlivan has been working with Basin states, supported by an advisory group, and consulting stakeholders more broadly to determine what should be the initial recommendations that are progressed. We can table a copy of Mr Quinlivan’s December advice. The advice sets out the five principal initial reforms that he recommends be progressed, and the basin states support recommendations in principle. Critically, at the moment there’s no code of practice to govern the behaviour of water market intermediaries, water brokers, so one thing the states agreed to is the development of a code that can put a compliance framework around the way that part of the market operates.
He also recommended that the Commonwealth introduce legislation to prohibit insider trading and market manipulation, so that’s something the department is looking very closely at. He made recommendations around collection and publication of trade data and a number of other recommendations. He is now working with basin states and stakeholders to develop a final draft which is due to the minister in June this year. So, the terms of reference for the work that he’s doing are on our website and we can provide you with a copy of that as well.
[Senator Roberts] Ms Connell and Senator Ruston, can you see the public and farmers, in particular, are very concerned? I haven’t discussed this with you, but apparently you had a successful business with flowers. Water is key to that, and you’ve developed remarkable efficiencies in the use of that water, as I understand it. I’m not a farmer, but I know listening to farmers that water is like gold. It dramatically increases the productivity of farmland, so it’s worth a lot of money. But it’s also worth a lot of money to traders and speculators, and we’ve removed the connection between water allocations and farmers’ property ownership.
[Senator Ruston] You’re talking about the unbundling of water from land?
[Senator Roberts] Correct; I am. What I’m saying is that, in the absence of significant measuring of water flows right across the basin, in the absence of science, the contradiction of science and the highly variable climate, which is natural—and we’ve got the north being different from the south, and people not understanding each other—there’s a lot of suspicion that the government, and governments in the past, have simply protected water traders because we still don’t have a water trading register. Whether that’s a state and territory issue, it needs to be done. And now we’ve got the ACCC saying there are significant concerns even though they didn’t identify any particular fraud. This does not build confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, nor the plan.
[Ms Connell] I think there are three components to the question. So, under the constitution, states are principally responsible for water resource management, so the obligation is on them to establish and maintain water registers. Each of the Murray-Darling Basin jurisdictions has in place a water register at this point in time.
[Senator Roberts] I’m not interested in why we can’t do it; I’m interested in what we should do.
Ms Connell : It’s being done—
[Senator Roberts] It’s a major impediment to you.
Ms Connel l : and you can get access to those registers online. I think the Bureau of Meteorology now aggregates information from each of those state registers in their water information portal, so we can provide you with the link to that quite easy to use website.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you.
[Ms Connell] I would just like to get on the record that the ACCC didn’t find any evidence of speculative activity.
[Senator Roberts] I just said that, but they had significant concerns.
[Ms Connell] One of their key recommendations was to get in place a code backed by enforcement and compliance powers to improve the integrity and transparency of the market, and that’s what the basin states have agreed to and the principal adviser has reported on. We’re now working with basin states to look at how we can develop that.
[Senator O’Neill] But it hasn’t happened. What’s the date for that to commence? Senator Roberts, I’ve got a whole lot of questions that I want to follow up on. When you get out there and talk to people, as Senator Roberts has said, they just tell you straight up about—
[Senator Roberts] The corruption.
[Senator O’Neill] The corruption that’s happening. Their computers aren’t fast enough to compete with people who are in the space. You would’ve heard it as much as I’ve heard it. What’s the timing on the response to this?
[Ms Connell] We’re currently working with basin states to look at the development of a draft code. One of the key things will be to consult with stakeholders on what that draft code will look like. When making changes that will impact on a regulated community it’s important to undertake a process whereby we publish a proposed draft code, provide an opportunity for comment and also provide a period of time for that regulated community to come into compliance. We’re actively working with states on progressing that proposal.
[Senator O’Neill] But do you have a time line?
[Ms Connell] I can take that on notice; I don’t have it in front of me.
[Senator Roberts] I brought eight copies of an article from News Weekly, ‘Murray-Darling Basin Plan ruining the Edward River’. Once again, we’re talking about environmental damage of a type never before seen along the Murray system, caused in all probability by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The first paragraph of this article says:
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan (MDBP), which has the goal of protecting the environment—
As Senator Ruston said—
is instead destroying it.
And there are so many examples; it’s the same type of damage that we’re seeing elsewhere. We’ve raised this about the Murray itself. When is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, or the department, going to convene a proper public inquiry into environmental destruction along the Murray River system? Landholders along the Edward are just flabbergasted at how much damage is being done in the name of the environment.
[Mr Reynolds] The Edward system, in effect, runs parallel to the Murray. Part of the work we’re looking at around the choke is how we manage water through that part of the system, and that includes water through the Edward River as well. Clearly, there are a lot of demands on the system to manage it for consumptive use as well as for the environment. One of the key things we’re looking at as part of the Barmah Choke Feasibility Study is how to manage the system holistically, not just moving a problem from one part of the system to another. So there’s a lot of activity to examine the Edward system as well.
Erosion is a natural feature within our river systems. We have a heavily regulated—
[Senator Roberts] Excuse me; some people would disagree with you. They’re saying the amount of water and the duration of high river flows are quite unnatural. Farmers along the Murray and people along the Edward are saying the same thing. That’s what’s doing the damage, according to them.
[Senator O’Neill] Exactly, that’s what they’re saying to me too, Senator Roberts.
[Mr Reynolds] There’s no doubt that we’ve regulated the river system to achieve a whole lot of benefits which that provides, but that has substantially changed the natural flow patterns in the river. We have higher river flows through summer because we’re delivering water to meet irrigation demands which are critical to the prosperity of many communities throughout the basin. That’s one of the aspects of the Basin Plan: we work through that balance between environmental outcomes and the social and economic prosperity of communities throughout the basin as well.
There are going to be impacts on a regulated system—there’s no doubt about that. We’re looking, through the Barmah Choke Feasibility Study work, at options we might have to alleviate some of those pressures on that part of the river system—the Edward, the Murray and, indeed, the Goulburn system as well. I can’t say that there are no impacts on a regulated river system, but I guess those impacts are balanced against the other benefits that they provide to communities in a wide range of—
[Senator Roberts] I’m not accusing you—and I mean this sincerely—or anyone here of anything. Government in this country—and I’m not talking about the Morrison Joyce government, I’m talking about federal governance—is quite often about wealth transfer. The more regulation we have then the more that can be hidden. It’s built into this, the whole thing. There are just so many avenues for it to be loose and sloppy and the people who pay, time and time again, are the everyday Australians who pay for the mess in government.
I’m not having a go at you; I’m not looking at you in particular. I’m just saying that this is a mess. How can we sort it out so that the people and the environment stop paying the price for mistakes?
[Senator Davey] I think that finishing that choke study might be a good first step.
[Mr Reynolds] In that part of the river system, in particular, there is significant work, investigation and analysis on how we can manage some of these detrimental impacts while still achieving the good impacts that people are looking for.
Some of the impacts we’ve seen in terms of high river flows and the river flowing at higher flow rates, or at least at levels higher than it has in the past, are the result of lost capacity in the river system and the deposition of sand within the Choke. That means to get the same volume of water through the Choke and downstream that we had in the past, the river needs to run at a higher level for a longer period of time. That’s absolutely the challenge that we’re dealing with. The work that we’re doing to understand that, and to understand the options we have to take the pressure off the river system, is a critical part of that intervention.
[Senator Roberts] I’m saying the core problem may be something even deeper. Thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WgkBONZ6Sq0/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:02:002022-03-04 11:14:33Why did the Government vote against a water trading register? MDBA Part 2
The figures don’t lie, Australian farmers have saved the economy from a recession. While the government will always try to take credit for a good news story, I made this speech back in September celebrating the true heroes of Australia, the farmers on the ground.
Transcript
I recently spoke on mining exports keeping the Australian economy out of depression. Today I’m addressing the other good news story: agriculture. In the last 12 months, wheat prices are up 33 per cent, corn up 57 per cent, canola up 72 per cent, sugar up 65 per cent and—the one the Greens hate the most—cotton up 45 per cent. It’s not politicians keeping Australia out of a depression; it’s farmers’ hard work and resilience. Drought and cold from the current solar minimum are reducing crop yields worldwide.
At the same time, the drought in many places in Australia has ended. Prime Minister Morrison and Treasurer Frydenberg are taking credit for a strong economy that’s none of their doing. For years this parliament has been making life as hard as possible for farmers and irrigators. In 2019, One Nation asked this parliament to provide a measly 200 gigalitres of water from the Hume Dam to keep our farmers going through the drought. Labor, the Greens and the Liberals and their sell-out sidekicks the Nationals, teamed up to vote down our motion. As a result, the basin winter crop in 2019 failed.
Here we are in 2021 and the Murray-Darling Basin from Queensland to South Australia is at a high 80 per cent of water storage capacity. Hume and Dartmouth hold 5,700 gigalitres. The water the politicians said wouldn’t be there because of climate change is there. This parliament fails again. For weeks now up to 20 gigalitres a day of water that should have gone to farmers has been sent out to sea at the Murray mouth. With Lake Victoria’s storage full and Menindee filling quickly, flooding in the lower basin is a real possibility—and still farmers along the Murray and Murrumbidgee are receiving only 30 per cent water allocation.
At these crop prices, is this parliament mad? Give farmers their water and let them grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation. It’s time now to allow every Australian to lift themselves up through our own initiative
There have been massive increases in debt in the last 12 months, without the necessary objective data to underpin them. That shows, yet again, poor governance of our country. When you take in government charges, rates, levies and fees as well 68% of someone’s average income is taken in tax. That’s working from Monday to mid-morning Thursday to pay for government.
Transcript
Senator Siewert’s motion is that the Senate notes that the Morrison government’s 2021-22 budget left people on low incomes behind. I would go further. This budget leaves the whole country behind, and that means it leaves everyone behind. There have been massive increases in debt in the last 12 months, without the necessary objective data to underpin them. That shows, yet again, poor governance of our country. In Senate estimates, I discussed with the chief medical officer and the secretary of the health department the seven essential components of a plan for managing a virus. The federal government is addressing one; the state governments are addressing another—that’s it—and they have both been addressed poorly.
I want to discuss the productive capacity because that’s what determines the wealth and the economic security, and, indeed, sometimes the defence security of our nation in the future. The productive capacity of our country has been declining considerably since 1944 and, in fact, since 1923, if we want to get into basics—but that’s for another day. Let’s look at the most important part of productive capacity—the human asset, our people. Look at education, because it’s the future leaders of this country who will determine the future productive capacity, as well as us determining that capacity today. We have declining scores in education. Reading and writing, mathematics and science—declining. By world standards, we are falling well behind in the core aspects of education but we devote plenty of resources, plenty of time, plenty of energy to teaching kids—misleading kids—about gender fluidity, critical race theory, non-gender language and a national curriculum that the government forks out money for yet cannot control. That’s what has been told to us by the federal government.
We need charter schools. We need parents to have more say in the running of their schools, and principals to have more say in the running of their schools; parents to control what values are passed on; and parents to decide whether or not their children will be taught about gender fluidity. I want to compliment Mark Latham in the New South Wales parliament and my colleague Senator Pauline Hanson for the bills they are introducing and evaluating right now to restore values and common sense to education. I note that Singapore, Japan, and Korea have really moved ahead in recent years, as has Taiwan. They all have solid basic education.
What’s happened to apprenticeships in this country? Senator Lines moved a motion today with regard to apprenticeships sadly lacking in WA. Senator Hanson has proudly introduced an apprenticeship scheme that the government has taken and refurbished and expanded, such is the success of her suggestion on apprenticeships. What has happened to universities? They followed our primary schools and high schools in becoming more woke and driven by anything but education. As for university education, it is now just pushing an ideology. Our TAFE systems have fallen into disrepair; our trades qualifications are falling into disrepair.
Let’s move on then to the workplace. The Fair Work Act is an abomination. It is about that thick in pages printed. It destroys the employer-employee relationship, which is essential for productive capacity. It is difficult for anyone, an employee or a small businesses employer who doesn’t have access to lawyers and consultants and HR practitioners to work their way through that. How can they possibly be held accountable for that relationship when they can’t even understand it and never will understand it, not because of lack of intelligence but because of lack of time and surely being overwhelmed? Again, just like education, this is poor governance to get into this state.
Then we go to energy—arguably the most critical in material resources because energy has determined the competitiveness of every country. Under President Trump America reversed the decline in its competitiveness because it reversed its increase of energy prices and it started to decrease its energy prices again. America became more competitive against its competitors and blossomed because of that. President Trump created more jobs than any president in history because of that and because he cut away regulations.
This government and its predecessors have fiddled the Renewable Energy Target, destroying our baseload coal-fired power stations, our grid. The network costs are destroying our grid, making it unaffordable. Retail sectors of electricity are just a fabrication. The national electricity market is now a national electricity racket. It’s not a market at all; it’s a bureaucracy that’s interfered with and manipulated by bureaucrats looking after vested interests. Then we see privatisation. The Queensland Labor government is taking about $1½ billion every year from people who use electricity—businesses, small businesses and families—and that is now a tax. We have taxes on electricity. Why is it that the Chinese can produce electricity and sell it for one-third the cost of electricity sold in this country when they use the same coal as we do? They take it thousands of kilometres, burn it and sell the coal-fired power to their consumers and we sell it for three times as much because of regulations that come out of both sides of this parliament.
Then we look at water. The Murray-Darling Basin has been gutted. Communities have been gutted. Regions have been gutted. And nothing is happening about it. Today we passed an amendment to restore compliance with the law, the Water Act of 2007, with regard to water trading. It was supported by the Labor Party but denied by the Liberals and Nationals. They don’t want to comply with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It went down to the lower house and Labor changed and sent it back here, in cahoots with the Liberals and Nationals. That will continue to destroy water allocations in our country because it will continue the corruption and the likely—I’m very confident in saying this—criminal activity going in the Murray-Darling Basin with regard to abuse of water trading.
Then we see property rights, which are fundamental to running a farm or a business. They were capriciously stolen under the Howard-Anderson government in 1996 and then progressively by Labor premiers from Queensland and New South Wales, jumping on the bandwagon to steal farmers’ property rights. Why? To comply with the United Nations Kyoto protocol of 1996—that’s why. Farmers have lost the value of their land. We see that extended in Queensland, for example, by the Queensland state government, relying on bogus claims about the reef to lock up land. We then see the federal government enacting carbon farming, where vast tracks of good farmland are laid waste, abandoned and taken over by feral animals and noxious weeds. There are costs to managing them as they spread around the country and fall on their neighbours’ properties. This is another example of poor governance. There’s a lack of infrastructure in water. The Bradfield scheme is crying out for investment.
Then we go to the most destructive system of all in our country, the Australian taxation system. In 1996 and 2010, Jim Killaly was the deputy commissioner of taxation for large companies and international matters. He said on both occasions—1996 and 2010—that 90 per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no company tax. They use our resources, people, assets, defence forces, police forces and education system and pay nothing in return and just take. The Japanese, by comparison, have in their large companies 2.5 per cent foreign owned. The American and the British figures are about 12.5 per cent. Who pays for these foreign companies to use our assets and to make money without paying company tax? The people of Australia pay for that through families paying taxes, individuals paying taxes, small businesses paying taxes and some large Australian come companies paying 30 per cent against their multinational competitors who don’t have to pay that. How can we possibly compete? Then we found out in the late 1990s and early 2000s—and I’ve asked the Parliamentary Library to update this figure—that a person on an average income in this country pays 68 per cent of their income to government. Housing is not our largest expenditure in life; government is, through taxes, rates, fees, levies, chargers, supercharges and special charges. Joe Hockey admitted when he was Treasurer that 50 per cent of a person’s income is taken in tax. He said people work from January through to the end of June for government and then they keep what’s left. The actual figure, when you take in government charges, rates, levies and fees as well, is 68 per cent, which means that someone on the average income is working from Monday to mid-morning Thursday to pay for government.
Then they have what’s left, the two-thirds of Thursday and Friday, to pay for their entire life: their retirement, their education, their food, their shelter, their car, their transport, their entertainment. That is not fair, and it shows poor governance. I haven’t got time now to talk about attempts to reform taxation, but both parties, both the tired old parties, have shown a reluctance to invest energy and political will and sheer guts in tackling—and they lack the integrity to tackle—comprehensive tax reform.
I mentioned infrastructure a minute ago. What about projects like the Richmond agricultural project? What about the irrigation project up in Hughenden? What about things like Iron Boomerang, which would transform our country and make it the most cost-effective and largest producer of steel, and give us enormous security for manufacturing and for our defence? Then we have things that tap into that Iron Boomerang—things like an inland rail that’s being destroyed by the Liberal-National government, an inland rail that is sucking up resources and coming up with something that will be far worse than the existing installations, especially when we consider the blowout in the cost. Again, it’s a lack of data, a lack of sound planning. An inland rail and a proper route through to Gladstone would be part, then, of a proper national rail circuit.
Madam Deputy President, I submit to you these points that show and prove that the government here has not only left the poor behind, as Senator Siewert points out; the government has put additional burdens on the poor, the government has put a regressive tax on the poor in terms of energy prices. Energy prices are increasing alarmingly, and the poor have to pay a higher and higher and higher proportion of their income on a fundamental, which is energy. And then the poor pay for it because they lose their jobs when our manufacturing jobs and some of our agricultural and agricultural processing jobs are exported to China, which uses our raw materials—gas and coal—to produce electricity far more cheaply than we sell it for in our own country. So we’re losing out entirely and we lose out in the diminishing of our defence security.
So I certainly agree with Senator Siewert that the Morrison government’s 2021-22 budget has left people on low incomes behind. It has left people right across the country behind. It has left Australia behind.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/XK4A-0W3fJ4/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-25 13:51:432021-06-25 14:02:48Do you feel like government spends your money well?
Labor has sensationally backflipped on a One Nation water register in the House of Representatives after supporting it in the Senate. The Water Act was passed in 2007 with the provision that trades be recorded in a central, basin-wide, transparent water trading register.
The Council of Water Ministers agreed to this register in 2008. The Murray Darling Basin Authority tried to introduce this register in 2009 and failed. Nothing has been done since, my amendment simply put a date on getting it done of September 2021.
The amendment was passed in the Senate with the entire cross bench and ALP in support. Then the ALP and the Government did a dodgy deal to vote the amendment down in the lower house.
The Nationals and the ALP are acting together to breach the Water Act in order to stop a transparent water register which will show who is trading water for speculative purposes. The only logical conclusion is that these parties are protecting their own.
Transcript
The amendments on sheet 1200 simply implement an existing requirement of the Water Act to maintain a transparent register of water trades. This provision has been in the Water Act for 14 years. As Minister Dutton kindly pointed out in the House of Representatives debate this morning, this amendment has a solid legal basis. The pathetic excuse the Nationals gave that the states each have their own register actually supports our case for a basin-wide register. The Nationals have confirmed that there is not a basin-wide register. By taking this action, the ALP and the Liberals and their sellout sidekicks the Nationals are making it clear that they intend to pick and choose which aspects of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan they intend to follow. It’s a bit like they’re saying: ‘We like this bit. Let’s spend years stealing water from farmers, forcing up the price of water so the holdings of our friends are suddenly worth a fortune. But we hate this bit. We don’t want anyone to know what we’re doing.’ On what legal basis are the Nationals, the Liberals and Labor doing this? (Time expired)
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/file-3.jpeg?fit=853%2C480&ssl=1480853Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-25 12:51:382022-03-02 14:43:08LABOR BACKFLIPS ON WATER TRADING REGISTER IN DODGY DEAL
UPDATE: Labor has backflipped on their support for a public, transparent water register by voting down this amendment in the House of Representatives where it went after initially passing in the Senate with Labor’s support. As a result, a transparent public water trading register will not be established. Senator Roberts made a further speech here: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/labor-backflips-on-water-trading-register-in-dodgy-deal/
Senator Roberts has succeeded in passing a water trading register in the Senate tonight where others have failed over successive years.
Senator Roberts has campaigned tirelessly to protect farmers in the Murray Darling Basin, which extends from Queensland all the way to South Australia.
The MDB Plan has allowed corporate agriculture to outbid family farmers and dominate water trading.
Senator Roberts said, “The lack of a transparent water trading register has allowed aggressive traders to inflate prices and starve productive land of much needed water.
“This is forcing family farms off the land with a catastrophic cost to locals jobs and the ruination of rural communities,” he said.
The water trading register was expected to be put in place in 2009. The Government has spent $30 million between 2009 and 2012, has failed repeatedly and then gave up. Farmers have suffered because of this ineptness over the past decade.
“This water trading register will give the Inspector General of Water Compliance the information he needs to clean up water trading and restore confidence in Basin management,” Senator Roberts added.
Following the success in the Senate this amendment will move to the lower house where the government will struggle to find the numbers to oppose it.
“We are left bewildered as to why the Liberals and the Nationals would oppose a water trading register,” stated Senator Roberts.
I have been calling for a transparent public water register for several years now. There are too many dodgy dealings happening in the Murray Darling Basin including water possibly held by politicians.
Our view on this aligns with the ACCC who have also backed a public water register. It is simply common sense.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair and thank you for attending tonight. In reference to your report of the Murray-Darling basin water markets inquiry, is it a fair representation of your findings to say, “There is a lack of quality, timely and accessible information for water market participants. The ACCC’s analysis has highlighted the need for significant improvements in the consistency and completeness of Murray-Darling basin water market trading?”
Sounds like what we’ve found Senator, that rings a lot of bells. It’s obviously a very complex market and it’s grown up. I guess it just sort of evolved and water administrators have been much concerned with the allocation of water rather than the trading of water, so, I think, general judgement is, there’s a range of things that need to be done to get the market working really properly and addressing the problems you’ve just correctly summarised ’cause it is such a fundamental market for farmers.
[Malcolm Roberts] I haven’t read your report, but one of my staff who is intimately involved with the Murray-Darling basin says gives you A plus.
Oh, very good Senator, I appreciate that. I should pass it on to the team.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve been all over the basin and we’ve listened to a lot of people and it makes total sense.
Thank you.
[Malcolm Roberts] The Water Act 2007, schedule three specifies that all trades should be recorded in a register for water trades, register of water trades. Your report notes the failed attempt by the Murray-Darling basin authority to introduce a national water market following which they just gave up trying. Is implementing this 14 year old law compatible with the findings in your report about the need for improvements in water trading data transparency?
I’m gonna pass to Mr. Betsy, who’s the person most familiar with this, so.
If I understand your question, Senator, you’re asking me whether the recommendations in our report will improve transparency in the water market? And yes, our answer to your question is that’s what they’re intended to do, that’s the big problem that, or one of the big problems that we think need to be addressed. There are some other issues as well, integrity of some of the mechanisms to ensure that people have confidence in the integrity of market and the conduct of the players in the market, making data available more generally in a more consistent way across the whole market so that people can use it for their purposes. There’re whole range of different recommendations that we think will be carefully considered by the implementation panel over the next year or so.
[Malcolm Roberts] I didn’t wanna interrupt because it was music to my ears but specifically what I was after was, is a register of water trades consistent with your report?
Yes, absolutely, well, and either a single register or registers that are compatible and that record data in a consistent way.
But that’s a classic example of what’s missing so there’s no doubt about that. And that again, reflects the way it’s evolved and why it needs very much to improve.
[Malcolm Roberts] From page 182 of the report, “89% of the volume of all large investors spot allocation purchases and 67% of the volume of all large investors bought allocation sales in the Southern connected basin in the 2018 and 19 water year, were attributed to one investor, can you indicate who that investor was?
I don’t think it would be appropriate to do so.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, and that’s why we need a register.
Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] But we would know the answer if we had a transparent water register, correct?
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] And so without, this is just a statement, without a water trading register shady or crooked operators can hide. And I’m not saying that they’re shady or, but someone could.
The difficulty is that we don’t know whether they are shady or crooked operators.
Exactly, but that’s the problem, that’s the problem, we don’t know and if the market was working with all the normal regimes then, that would make bad behaviour much, much, much harder. So we don’t know about the system, opens itself to that.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’ll bring the cupboard, the cockroaches scatter when the light hits them. Page 185 of your report indicates that in 2018 and 19, 63 gigalitres of water was traded from above the Barmah choke to below the choke, is this correct?
There’s only 700.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, it is, so.
If it’s in the report, if it’s in the report it’s very likely to be correct is correct.
It’s correct, right, thank you.
[Malcolm Roberts] It’s correct, yeah, okay. Is this figure net or gross? In other words, we know that 63 was traded from above and moved to below the Barma choke. Was there a corresponding trade moving water from below the choke to above the choke?
That’d be taking the water upstream.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
And that’s a very difficult thing to do.
[Malcolm Roberts] it is, but…
I mean, conceptually, there are ways in which trades can occur where that happens.
[Malcolm Roberts] But that figure would be…
Yeah, I expected it’s a gross figure but it would be pretty close to being a net figure but we can take that on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. In senate estimates last Friday, Andrew Reynolds, the chief executive director of the Murray-Darling basin authority testified that there was no transfer of water from above to below the choke since any trade below was matched by a trade back the other way. This is not what your thorough and detailed investigation has found according to my staff, is that correct?
Look, I think it’s best we take it on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes, okay.
We’ve got the question that we’ll certainly get back to you and we should have the information.
[Malcolm Roberts] Your data came from voluntary information disclosures. So put simply the trades you examined were the trade people wanted you to see. Is there a chance that trades were hidden from the ACCC inquires?
That’s not correct senator, we use compulsory powers to compel the production of a large amount of the data and the information we received. Some of it we did receive voluntarily from state government agencies, but a very large proportion of it we obtained using compulsory powers.
Paint a picture that others couldn’t because we had the information gathering powers. That’s why we were able to put all the data together in the way we did. Without the powers, the study wouldn’t have had the same thoroughness.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Moving onto a separate topic now, this is to do with market power. The Commonwealth bank has announced that they are investing $30 million in e-commerce startup little birdie, so far so good. Now the bit that concerns, the Commonwealth will add the little birdie e-commerce portal directly into their banking app. Is the Commonwealth bank using its market power to grow a business that it has an interest in?
Look, I think Senator, I don’t know if any of my colleagues have comment, but, I mean the Commonwealth bank is, don’t know, its probably got 25% of the home loan market. It’s obviously the biggest bank but in terms of what they’re doing, there’s a lot of other players in the market. So certainly happy to keep an eye on it. But I think with all else going on in the market it would be a bit early to call that market power. It’s, you know, it’s an interesting development. They’re trying to match a range of other digital players, fintechs offering various services. So I think, we almost see it as an encouraging sign to improve the mix of economic activity But I accept they’re a big player and when big players do things like that we have to monitor it carefully.
Senator, if you don’t mind, it seems we have a dedicated unit within our agency that focuses on financial services, competition issues and actively monitors this sorts of developments and reports to a financial services competition board. And that, I think it’s a very good mechanism for really tracking what’s going on in competition in financial services.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, it’s just that the banks, as Mr. Sims pointed out have got enormous power, the four of them have got enormous power. And if they get behind something.
They’ll do the same thing, senator, that’s a different matter, as I understand, it’s the Commonwealth bank on its own, making that move. If they all did it collectively that would a very different matter and that could well bridge competition laws.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, so, next question Wespact are now, Westpac is now offering private label banking services after pay, as their first customer. Does Essec have a point at which the banks could be considered to be misusing their market power? You just mentioned one example.
You mentioned Essec, I think you meant ACCC, again, I think fairly early days, I don’t know whether my colleagues have. I think it’s part of all the rich developments that are going on that we’re monitoring very closely.
And there are a number of white label services provided by various banks. Citibank, for example provides white label credit card facilities. And in a sense, what Westpac is doing is a pro-competitive thing entering into an activity that enables after paid provide a full range of services than it currently does. And we see that as a way for them to become a more viable competitor within the financial services market.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, how about the last question on ACCC, how about Westpac shutting down banking facilities for cash handling companies so that it can direct their retail customers to use one specific cash handling company that they have a financial arrangement with essentially De banking, where does this slippery slope end if we let banks do this and they will eventually own everything and force companies that don’t own out of business?
I’m not aware of that particular issue, Senator, happy to take that on notice and have a look at that. We certainly are interested in De banking. And we made recommendations about that when we did an inquiry into foreign exchange because we think there’s got to be rules that people can meet so that they can’t be Di banked in an ad hoc way. So we’re very concerned about Di banking but I’m not aware of, I don’t think we’re aware of that particular
Yeah, no, we are, sorry Mr. Sims, we are aware of certain commercial arrangements that have been made that have been having an impact in the cash delivery market. There’s a couple of firms that dominate that market and we’ve had a close look at some of the arrangements there. It’ll be interesting to understand whether your referring to one of the things that we’ve looked at or whether it’s a new issue. And that might be based on by taking on others of you questions.
[Malcolm Roberts]Would you like one of my staff to contact you?
Yes, yes, that would be helpful.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, thank you very much, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LiV-gPrWQHA/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-04 13:57:192021-06-04 13:57:27ACCC aligns with One Nation calls for Murray Darling water register
There are many allegations of criminal activity and water stealing in the Murray Darling Basin. The Inspector General of Water is intended to be the cop on the beat and stamp out a lot of this non-compliance. I’ve travelled extensively across the Murray Darling Basin and spoken to locals on the ground.
I wanted to see if many of the issues I’d been told of had been brought to his attention.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Have you made contact with the New South Wales Natural Resources Access Regulator specifically in connection with unapproved water storages in New South Wales, including the Northern Basin?
I’ve had a number of contacts with Grant Barnes, the CEO of the Natural Resource Access Regulator and the Chairman Craig Knowles, not on that specific issue, more on general issues about our establishment and about metering and yeah, metering and a little bit about the water sharing plan on our last meeting.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are you aware, I’m not having a criticism of you, but are you aware of how much concern there is about water theft in the Northern Basin from people in other areas of the Murray-Darling Basin?
Oh, without question.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That’s very reassuring.
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] So is there a timeframe for getting to the bottom of the question of how much water is being extracted in the Northern Basin as against the amount allowed by the plan?
Our work plan will, once we are legislated enact a number of assurance checks, auditing processes to get to answer a lot of those questions and then hopefully be able to work off a benchmark so that we can then answer those questions specifically.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I understand the legislation that enables your position is in the Lower House now?
That’s correct.
[Malcolm Roberts] And, so once that’s passed, how long do you think it’ll be before you have a good handle of that, three months, six months?
I can’t speculate on the parliamentary process or the ascension into from the Governor General.
[Malcolm Roberts] Once your position is created, legislated, how long will it take you to get a good handle on the Northern basin and the water?
We’ve already got a handle, we’ve made preparations with the scoping of a number of bodies of work that will be part of our work plan to start day one.
[Malcolm Roberts] And to get to the bottom of the issues and come up with some conclusions. How long roughly, do you think?
Well, there’s different timelines for different projects within that work plan, but they will all be transparently published on our website. So everyone will understand the work that we’re doing and the projects that we’re doing and the timeframes.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s wonderful. When will that be available? I know it’s subject to the passage of the legislation.
The day we are enacted, it will be published.
[Malcolm Roberts] There’ll be a lot of people pleased to hear that. So we’ll be looking forward to it. If the enabling legislation passes as presented what tools do you have at your disposal to decide who is and who is not cheating on the basin plan? And what strategies would you be following?
It’s a difficult question to answer cause it’s case by case, or there’s holistic views, so, I guess if you’re talking about, if it’s a regional issue, like you referenced the Northern Basin, the legislation would allow us to potentially conduct an inquiry to get through some potential broader systematic issues that may be there. We have the ability through audit and compelling of information to inform potential river operation arrangements and how that’s measured and modelled and things like that. So there’s a number of different mechanisms depending on what the scope of the actual inquiry is. So your questions are very large, broad.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you can work at that level, but you can also work at the property level?
Exactly. Right. The property level would be less regular, we’re a regulator of last resort in that instance but there would be circumstances where we would do that and the legislation allows us to have authorised officers to conduct that work. But yes, it’s a tiered ability from an inquiry through to audit and assurance, checking and through to individual investigations.
[Malcolm Roberts] And you will also have the authority to appoint people to do that work for you?
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you’re going to have foot soldiers for you?
Yes. I will have under the statute the ability to, not sure of the exact word but to create the authorised officer or officers.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you’ll have all that’s needed to enforce the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, make sure there’s no favouritism to any area.
Yes, and part of the MoG arrangements is making sure that each of those authorised officers have the appropriate training, skill sets and to allow me to approve them as Commonwealth investigators as an authorised officer.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. ‘Cause there’s a lot of concern about cheating on the plan.
I’ve heard that loud and clear Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] What other matters are you investigating right now?
We don’t have the powers to formally investigate.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry. Yeah. Okay. What are you evaluating right now? What will you be investigating
We’re scoping and canvassing everything from standards, trying to understand benchmark of standards because the inconsistency from valley to valley, state to state, north to south basin is significant. So we’re canvassing that and have a body of work prepared for that, river operations, metering, trade, which there’s specific legislation in relation to trade. There’s specific legislation that allows me to create standards and benchmarks. Now that’s done in cooperation with the basin states obviously because a lot of the state legislation may need adjustment depending on what agreed standards and benchmarks that are created as well, so it’s a variant scale of work.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m very pleased to hear that you’ve used the word variation because there is enormous variation, particularly between the north and south, that makes it very difficult for people in those areas to understand the other areas. But what specific topics are on your radar? What issues?
Senator, all of them to be frank and because a lot of them are interrelated, there’s a lot of misinformation out there as well. So we have a role to be a myth buster and independent communicator of truth and make sure that the data that people rely on and the modelling that’s relied on has an independent validation as well. There’s a componentry role that we’ll play there. It’s a very broad role, but metering measurement through to water operations through to environmental water and outcomes. It’s everything.
[Malcolm Roberts] So trading?
I have, yes, I have powers under the act in relation to trading, but limited resources and mindful of of the recent ACCC’s work and recommendations which is currently under consideration by all states and the federal government.
[Malcolm Roberts] And what about making recommendations and changing systems to enable you to better oversee the trading in any breaches of trading regulations?
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve got the ability and the support to be able to make changes?
I won’t have the power to be the– up through the Basin Official Committee into MinCO for those.
[Malcolm Roberts] Because it seems at the moment trading is something that is difficult to enforce for a variety of reasons, but you’ll be able to get through that.
Well, I’ll be able to assist the Ministerial Council and Basin Officials Committee.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you Chair, that’s all I have.
[Chair] Thank you Senator Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] And I appreciate your direct answers. Thank you.
No, you’re welcome, Senator.
Chair could I just add to those answers by saying that, of course the relevant bill was introduced to The House of Representatives this week, through the explanatory materials, the minister’s second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum outlines many of the issues that the Inspector General has just been talking about and I’ve just reacquainted myself with the explanatory memorandum. It’s written in a very good style and it outlines the proposed powers of the Inspector General, the offence provisions and the various other issues that have been outlined here. So I would commend that to the attention of the committee.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you chair. Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Grant will then have the ability for things that are not defined in the regulations or in the legislation to actually go and talk to someone to make sure that they’re covered somehow?
Well, Mr. Grant, or the Inspector General, once appointed, would certainly be charged with the administration of those aspects of compliance and Mr. Grant’s interim Inspector General has indicated the work that’s underway at the moment, but also the preparations, the very detailed preparations that have been put in place to ensure that when the legislation and if the legislation is passed, the Inspector General will be able to hit the ground running.
[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from variation, another word that keeps cropping up is complexity in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the work of the Authority. So, Mr. Grant is human and he’s already had some input into the legislation, as I understand it, is that correct?
[Mr. Grant] Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] You mentioned that at the last Estimates I think, but he’s human so he won’t be able to understand everything quickly. So there’ll be need for changes of his approach or maybe changes that he couldn’t foresee a few months ago.
Well, certainly the Inspector General and Mr. Grant has outlined the fact that the Inspector General and the staff of the Inspector General will be a cop on the beat, that they will have staff, quite a significant resourcing out there in the Basin, working on a daily basis on these issues. And of course, if there are views that arrangements are not working properly, as Mr. Grant has explained, there’s a loop back through the Basin Officials Committee, given that this is a shared space between the Commonwealth and the states and the ACT to consider whether adjustments need to be made. So, the fact that there will be an on the ground presence will be a particularly powerful way of ensuring that things are actually working and if they need improvements then things can be done about it.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/latixF0DaPs/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-02 16:57:382021-06-02 16:57:51Will the Inspector General of Water Compliance have real teeth?
