Admission: “Environmental” Murray Darling water flows are damaging the environment

, , ,

In response to my question, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office has made a stunning admission that environmental damage along a 100km section of the river was caused by environmental, conveyance and irrigation water sent down under the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

My suggestion that the best way to fix the environmental destruction was to stop water trading below the Barmah Choke was met with an extraordinary comment from Andrew Reynolds. He said there was no extra water sent through the Choke because every trade below it was matched by one moving water back above the Choke. I wonder if that is right?

I am pleased to see that this Estimates has marked the demise of the supposed “sand slug”, which has now morphed into “sedimentation”. I was also pleased to get an undertaking that the MDBA will not create a man-made flood event to drain the Menindee Lakes and the current surge event will be limited below 40GL.

Another major flip flop from the MDBA came when I asked if the water coming into the Coorong and Lake Albert from the South East drains restoration project was environmental water for the basin. This classification was shot down last estimates however this time around Andrew Reynolds agreed this water was basin water to be used for the environment.

With only 350GL left to complete the SDL acquisitions I repeat my call that the restoration project should be stepped up and used to provide the remaining 350GL of SDL water. Farmers in the basin have given up enough water and should not be asked to provide one more drop.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are you familiar with the damage, the extensive damage, to the banks of the Murray River around the Barmah Choke?

Yes, I am.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, that’s good, we won’t need to table that then. It’s caused by nonstop water flows, and the picture that I was going to show you, if necessary, could have been taken anywhere along about 100 kilometres of the river, the damage is so pervasive. The Choke is being eroded by combined environmental, conveyance, and irrigation flows. What’s the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder doing about this damage?

Thanks, Senator. As you said, it’s a combination of all the water in the river that’s causing the bank erosion there. My colleagues from the MDBA may also want to talk about some of the geomorphology that’s occurring in the bed of the river there. There’s silting in the bed of the river, which is reducing the capacity of that narrow section of the river, between Yarrawonga and down to about Barmah, but the main sedimentation is in the Barmah area. And that damage is part of major studies and scientific work going on in that area, trying to work out what’s causing it, how it might be remediated. And we’re happy to be proud of that. I would also like to add that the water that the Commonwealth environmental water holder puts through that system there, is run counter cyclical to some of the irrigation demand in the system. We also put water around the choke through some of the forest streams and rivers through that area. And I have a bank into the forest there that helps de-energize some of that water, by taking some of that pressure off that peak demand season. We think we may actually be mitigating some of the issues that may otherwise be arising in that area.

[Malcolm Roberts] Before we do things, Pauline, Senator Hanson, and I we try to get the facts. So we went down the Murray River after hearing of extensive complaints from southern Queensland and then southern New South Wales and Northern Victoria. And we went down the Murray. And then when I came back into the Senate, I over flew the whole basin and the number one thing that I noticed I picked up in the first five minutes of my flight out of Aubrey, heading down the river, the river is incredibly tortuous incredibly so, and that tells me one thing the gradient is so, it’s almost flat and you would know that. And yet the amount of water that’s being shoved down that river is just phenomenal. And it’s doing this damage. This is the opposite of what environmental guardian should be doing in our opinion. So let me continue asking questions. This is just physically impossible to get all that water from the Upper Murray, downstream to the large corporate plantations, and all the environmental water. So this is the fourth estimates that I’ve asked about environmental damage to the choke, as the Commonwealth environmental water holder who should be interested in this, or the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, who are administering the plan that has caused this damage, done anything to stop this damage. It sounds like you haven’t just studied at the moment.

Senator, I think it’s fair that certainly the environmental water flows through the choke, as you said, other purposes as well I might ask the Murray-Darling basin authority to come forward and talk about

[Malcolm Roberts] Sure.

what’s being done in respect of the choke.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for acknowledging that there is a lot of water going down through there.

Andrew Reynolds, Executive Director River Management with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. So management of the choke is a significant concern for the Authority and how we regulate the river system. It has been pointed out there are a number of competing demands on the system, a delivery of consumptive water for irrigation demands, excuse me, environmental water demands through the system as well. There are a number of, as Mr. Taylor said, a number of studies have been underway to understand how the geomorphology of the choke is changing. Certainly sedimentation, which is occurring in the choke reduces the capacity through there in terms of the management arrangements there. Thank you. We certainly are focusing our system planning on how we move water through the system. We work very, very closely with environmental water holders and irrigation operators in terms of understanding demands, planning our system operations, so that we can deliver water to to Lake Victoria at varying times throughout the year. We make extensive use of inter-valley transfers from the Goulburn and Murrumbidgee system to also get a different pattern of water through the system to, in part, limit the amount of erosion that occurs. We certainly are working on getting a study underway to understand how we might better utilise Murray irrigation infrastructure or indeed infrastructure on the Victorian side, through the GMID to also be able to take some of the pressure off the banks through the river system. All of those pieces of work are underway. Some of them we can adapt our operations immediately to try and alleviate some of those concerns. Some of them are longer run pieces of work that will take some time to affect change.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are there any plans to construct a pipeline or a channel around that Barmah choke?

No, there’s no plans to construct anything in particular. We’re looking at a study to optimise how we might utilise existing infrastructure, certainly looking at whether or not there are other flow paths through the forest where we might be able to use some of the existing outfalls particularly from the Murray irrigation system. I had to put water into other smaller creeks to run it past the choke that way. That study may lead to investigation of some enhancements of that system but we’re yet to progress to that stage.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there’s no consideration or idea of a pipeline to get around it, or a channel to get around it? Because some of the locals are telling us that there are surveyors working in the Barmah overflow, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

Certainly there’s no significant studies like that around any major bypasses. We’ve not commissioned any on-ground field surveys or the likes. I’m not quite sure what people have observed but it’s not anything that we’ve commissioned.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So the trading of water used to be limited in the Murray-Darling Basin, as I understand it, from what I was told from by commissioners on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, that preceded the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, used to be limited to, a certain, limited to within each valley, within each catchment, and only to a certain extent downstream. Now they can be inter-catchment transfers, inter-valley transfers, and extensive transfers along the river. So we’ve got a lot of water moving from the northern part of the valley, Murray valley, down to the, sorry, the upstream part of the valley down to the large plantations. Wouldn’t one option be to stop that trading?

So Senator Roberts, there is actually a limit on trade from above the choke to below the choke. It’s been in place since 2014. And there’s no proposal that that would be relaxed. That limitation on trade requires that the net volume of water traded downstream is zero. So trade from above the choke to below can only occur if there’s been a an equivalent volume traded upstream first. And so the total volume of water moving through the choke is unchanged by trade.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, in a meeting that the Commonwealth environmental water holder was in, I think you were there Mr. Reynolds as well, in Parliament House with us in October of 2019 or thereabouts I was advised that the department is working on a report into water loss from over landing through the Barmah forest and has been collecting this data for many years. It’s now May 2021. It’s almost two years later. And this report has not been tabled. Isn’t this a critical, critical report for making good decisions about watering the Barmah?

So we have an ongoing programme of assessing each and every event where we put water through the forest for environmental water holders’ use, or indeed for transfers downstream in the rare occasions when that’s necessary. We use that work to assess the loss of water or the consumption of water within the forest. That’s part of the work that Mr. Taylor was talking about earlier, in terms of assessing the return flows to the river system. In other words, how much of the environmental water holders’ water is consumed in the forest versus how much comes back into the river to be used further downstream for other watering events. That’s an ongoing piece of work that will continue, I would imagine almost indefinitely, because every time you have another event you have another bit of data to assess the basis on which those losses are assigned. Certainly all of that work is done on the basis of making sure that there is no third party impact of water availability for other entitlement holders. So we take a conservative approach to those estimates, but we’re continually refining them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, maybe I wasn’t clear with my communication in the previous question. We were told there was a report coming, and this is almost two years later and there’s been no report. I would’ve thought the Commonwealth environmental water holder and yourself would be champing at the bit to get that report.

So we have produced reports on losses in terms of losses through the system, and we’ve just recently provided an update on losses for the last two water years, but the work on individual watering events and the development of effectively the loss rates applied to environmental water holdings is ongoing. It’s not being reported as a single report. We need to refine that,

[Malcolm Roberts] We were told there was a report coming and there’s no report. Are you aware of any report?

There are numbers of pieces of work that have been documented. I’d have to take on notice whether they’ve been published has certainly been shared with states and other others involved in that development of those estimates.

[Malcolm Roberts] So we were told there was a report coming.

[Andrew Reynolds] I don’t,

Let me just clarify, Senator Roberts, from my own knowledge, cause, there’s a report about the environmental water, or a report about the conveyance losses and use, cause I know in 2019 there was a report on that, the conveyance and loss through the Barmah area. And I think you just updated that? That was meant to be annual, but 2019, they didn’t do one last year.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s what I’m asking about. Reporting the water loss from over landing through the Barmah.

[Senator Davey] That’s been done, in 2019.

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. That report was done in 2019. And we’ve recently in the last month published an update that that completed the data for the 2019 water year and also reported on last year as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, with regard to that then how much environmental water went into the Barmah in 2020?

I’d have to take on notice the specific number.

Senator Roberts, do you have much more? because it is lunchtime, I,

[Malcolm Roberts] I just have one more question,

One more, perfect, thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Floodplain harvesting in excess of allowed take deprives the environment of flows needed to keep the river alive, and that means you have to do more with your water than it was intended to do. Is floodplain harvesting in the northern basin affecting your environmental water permit, remit, and is there anything you wish to say on this matter?

Thanks Senator, there’s been quite a bit of discussion with some northern Victorian irrigators and myself around this issue and other people across the southern connected basin. And I think there was some conversations around floodplain harvesting over the last five years and the potential impact that it may have had on either our resources and other resources in the southern connected basin. And in those conversations, we outlined that in over the last five years in 2016, it was a wet year and there was probably significant floodplain harvesting but had little, or minor impact in the south as it was good allocations in that year. 2017, there was good reserves in stocks in the south. And again, it probably had little impact upon our resources for environmental water delivery, 2018, 19, and 20. So the remaining three years in that period were probably record droughts in the northern basin. And as a consequence there was no water really in the northern basin to harvest. So again, it probably had little or no impact upon our resources available for environmental water delivery in the Southern connected basin. I’d like to add though, that the Commonwealth environmental water holder intends to put a submission in to the New South Wales government on the floodplain harvesting process. We’re very concerned about ensuring anything that occurs in that space is completely transparent, well measured, high levels of compliance, because in certain flow circumstances it could impact upon flows, could have an impact upon our capacity to deliver water particularly in some of the northern basin, probably more so than its likely impact in the Southern basin.

[Malcolm Roberts] Because as I understand it, before we go to lunch, one final thing. And as I understand it, as I understand it the people who end up paying, ultimately, with loss of water, are the farmers in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales. If someone’s going to lose it and water can’t come from the northern basin, they lose it.

So, I guess the impact of floodplain harvesting if there’s less resource makes it through the flows any of the reduced allocations as a core, that as that resource is shared is shared everywhere. It’s my understanding of it.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thanks, chair.

/by

Christine Holgate and Vaccination Bungle – 2SM with Marcus Paul

, ,

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marcus] Yeah.

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

[Marcus] Franchisee’s, franchised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marcus] All right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Protecting scientists like Peter Ridd: Academic Freedom is essential to University

, ,

Too often, we are seeing ideas silenced and censored at our universities. University is a place where the exchange of conflicting and opposing ideas should thrive and be encouraged. Thanks to One Nation lobbying, this bill ensures that the definition of academic freedom to do that is put into law.

We only need to look at examples such as Peter Ridd to see why we need to protect academic freedom. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling ‘hunted’.

Peter’s so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist’s first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to start my contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 with the statement that central to scientific endeavour is an environment that gives permission for the work of talented people to challenge the status quo, to develop ideas and to deepen our knowledge and understanding. This work demands a creative and innovative spirit, courage and objectivity, and a deep respect for the scientific method. Universities had, and should once again have, a central role to play in advancing thought and finding better ways of doing things. Therefore, their scientific staff must work in an environment that supports academic freedom. The Dalai Lama said:

In order to exercise creativity, freedom of thought is essential.

One Nation introduced these concepts and requested action from the then education minister, Dan Tehan, and I commend Senator Stoker for commenting that the government supports this initiative. Mr Tehan took these concepts from One Nation, particularly from Senator Hanson. He made sure that the now education minister, his replacement, Minister Tudge, continues to champion true freedom of speech in academia.

Therefore, One Nation wholeheartedly supports the new and expanded definition of academic freedom and hopes that no-one will ever need to endure what Professor Peter Ridd is still going through to fight for these fundamental academic freedoms. Professor Ridd was an employee of James Cook University for nearly 30 years. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling ‘hunted’. Peter’s so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist’s first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.

Quality assurance is a concept that many corporate organisations are familiar with. They do not invest money, time, energy and effort without that quality assurance. Yet it seems that some of our universities have strayed away from the discipline of the scientific method so much that they don’t feel the need to justify research outcomes or to deal with challenges to quality and assurance. Considering that billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is funnelled into policy development based on so-called research, it is not negotiable that these research outcomes must be above reproach. When we consider that the opportunity costs and the consequent costs for some policy based on so-called science are in the trillions of dollars for our whole nation, it is essential that science is challenged.

I have listened firsthand to many canefarmers and industry bodies from North Queensland and Central Queensland who attended the hearings into water quality in the Great Barrier Reef. These farmers and community members are exasperated, with one saying:

They trusted reef scientists to get the science right, … that trust has been destroyed. Instead cane farmers are being publicly demonised …

They also said that the reef regulations reflect a systematic abuse of science, based on assumptions and not evidence.

Communities are being gutted. Apart from the destruction of so many livelihoods, think of the cost to our society, to Queensland, to communities and to our nation when policies are knowingly based on poor science—which, by definition, is not science. Energy policies, climate policies and renewable energy policies based on so-called science are costing $13 billion in addition to the normal costs of electricity. That’s an average of $1,300 per household across Australia in addition to the cost of electricity. For every so-called green job created, 2.2 jobs in the real economy are destroyed. The Murray-Darling Basin act—the Water Act 2007—is now destroying communities across the Murray-Darling Basin, our No. 1 food bowl, and it’s based on rubbish that contradicts the empirical evidence.

Any scientist worth their professional reputation should have the freedom to stand against poor scientific outcomes and the lack of appropriate peer reviewing. I’ll go beyond that: it is the duty of every scientist to do so. The professional integrity of scientists should compel them to defend spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on policies that do not have a robust scientific basis and which are destroying people’s livelihoods.

Professor Peter Ridd has over 100 scientific publications and he has co-invented a worthy list of instrumentation, including an instrument for monitoring the effect of sediment on the reef, which is technology now used around the world; a water current meter, which is marketed by James Cook University worldwide; an optical system for measuring pipeware, which is used in mines Australia wide; and a system for managing agricultural weeds, which is marketed through AutoWeed. This is an impressive list of achievements. After three decades of work, such a scientist ought to be held in high esteem. If a scientist of this academic calibre and such commercial achievements and practical nous can still feel hunted down by a university for challenging the quality of research results in other departments—and hunted to his emotional and financial detriment—how the hell can we ever expect our upcoming brilliant minds, with far fewer runs on the board, to ever have the courage to do the same? We can’t. The simple answer is that these newcomers will not challenge, because they do not have the safety of freedom of speech and can’t risk their careers crashing and burning before they’ve started. Instead, these upcoming brilliant minds will fall into line and continue to expand the increasing pool of homogenous groupthink. And there is the death of creativity and the narrowing of truly great solutions to tomorrow’s problems.

In recent decades we’ve seen our society, our country, being decimated by policy driven science—and that is not science. It’s costing us trillions. We need to return to science driven policy—policy that is driven by science, true science that passes quality assurance tests and questions from sceptics. Professor Ridd has become the modern-day Galileo, for daring to challenge the common myth that farming methods in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas are damaging the reef. Professor Ridd’s research shows that commonly held myth to be incorrect, to be a lie. James Cook University didn’t like it, maybe because there is no doubt, in their view, that there would be a gaping hole in James Cook University’s funding for Great Barrier Reef research if water quality was indeed just fine, as Professor Peter Ridd’s work and the work of others confirms and suggests.

I acknowledge that universities are required to enshrine in their policy statement clear messages around freedom of speech and academic freedom. While we cannot intrude upon the enterprise agreements between universities and their employees, the amendment I will put forward today in the committee stage requests that higher education providers must take reasonable steps to ensure that enterprise agreements include provisions to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom. This commitment to academic freedom needs, wherever possible, to move beyond a policy statement that sits on the shelf and to enter the enterprise agreements, since that is where the cultural change will be brought about.

We cannot afford to be timid and ordinary when it comes to scientific endeavours. One Nation supports this bill, because we must give our scientific staff the academic freedoms they need to be at their creative best. Universities, businesses and governments all need to be prepared to update their outdated views when our brilliant minds in academia show us a better way. I’ll finish with the words of the late Steve Jobs, talking about his company Apple, one of the leaders in the world in new technology:

It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.

/by

The governance of our country is appalling

, , , ,

The governance of our country is appalling. My adjournment speech.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I draw attention to the Australian parliament’s failure to protect the interests of the Australian people. In the Senate yesterday, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Labor Party united in standing beside big banks against the interests of everyday Australians. Together they voted down my bill to prevent bank deposits being bailed in—meaning that when banks get into trouble they can steal depositors’ money.

Their madness is simple: Australia has the world’s safest banks; the only thing that could bring our banks down is a loss of confidence; that’s the very thing my bill was designed to stop. Not once has the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or APRA, the banking regulator, come out and said, ‘We will not bail in your deposits.’ It’s time the Australian people heard those words.

The right to use a banking service without losing our money is just one of many rights that everyday Australians have lost—another is the loss of property rights. Prime Minister John Howard’s government’s response to the UN’s Kyoto Protocol in 1996 was to use the deceitful trick of protecting junk vegetation from destruction. The carbon dioxide that this saved counted to our UN Kyoto targets and it still does.

It enabled his government to bypass its constitutional duty to compensate farmers for stealing their property rights. This is a perfect example of mad climate policies that are about bowing to unelected, unrepresentative foreign UN bureaucrats, rather than showing actual environmental outcomes. The land that John Howard’s capricious actions supposedly protected was not something worthwhile like an old-growth forest or repairing vegetation, no, it was agricultural land that was stolen.

John Howard’s government stole our farmers’ rights to clear junk vegetation that grows on a field not used for a few years. It prevents farmers making productive use of their land. To this day the general public think this ban on land clearing relates to actual forests. This conjures up images of evil farmers chopping down virgin forests and sending koalas of to their deaths.

The reality is this ban stops farmers clearing salt bush and junk vegetation that’s stopping productive agriculture on land that has been farmed many times. The old parties never let the truth stand in the way of virtue signalling. The Liberal-National government with John Howard as Treasurer is largely to blame for banking misconduct. It was John Howard who deregulated banking.

This exposed bank customers to the atrocious behaviour that was found during the Senate inquiry into rural and regional lending that I chaired. Our inquiry led to the banking royal commission finding even more wrongdoing. The Morrison government recently demonstrated another failure in looking after small business. Aussie company CuDeco operated the Rocklands copper mine near Cloncurry in Queensland.

It was driven into insolvency from the actions of the minority Chinese owners. The mine was sold to a local Chinese company who promptly onsold it to a Chinese government entity. China now owns an important Australian copper mine thanks to the ineffective Morrison government. The mine’s workers will never get their missing wages and local contractors are out of pocket $60 million.

The only way we will see CuDeco’s copper again is if we buy that copper inside Chinese manufactured electronics. Chinese corporations continue to cherrypick their way through our resources sector. China is buying mines, real estate, farms and even our water. I do compliment Treasurer Frydenberg though on his recent decision to block the sale of PURA milk to the Chinese, resulting in the Australian company Bega buying PURA.

It’s a welcome break after the Liberal-National and Labor parties selling Australia out for a generation. Since my return to the Senate last year the Liberal, Labor and National parties have been acting together and have voted down One Nation’s motions—many motions—to restore farmers’ water rights.

The 2007 Water Act takes their water rights and forces Aussie farmers, family farmers, off the land. Even now with all the rain this year farmers are on as little as 39 per cent allocation. Who passed the 2007 Water Act? Prime Minister John Howard. Who introduced the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2012? Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

The whole point of the Water Act was to remove family farms from the land, then to remove their water rights to new irrigation areas on cheap land belonging to corporate agriculture. Windfall profits all round. Australian farmers and local communities being gutted. The Australian parliament must decide whether it represents the interests of big business or the interests of everyday Australians.

/by

CSIRO doesn’t have climate change evidence

, ,

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

Around this time every week, we catch up with One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, good morning to you.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, you have got a hectic morning this morning, I hear.

[Marcus Paul]

Always busy, which is just how we like it, but look, I’ve got the next six, seven minutes to chat away with you, which I’m really looking forward to today. I know you’ve been doing a lot of travelling, haven’t you? You been…

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, we’ve gone from Brisbane right through to Cairns. I’m actually sitting in a hotel room in Cairns, and we’ve been listening to people along the way. It’s been fabulous. A bit rushed, but very good.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, why are you doing this tour again?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Because we’re getting the word out on my exposing the fact that the CSIRO has never produced any evidence for our climate policies and renewable energy policies.

We’re just getting that word out through the media around Queensland.

[Marcus Paul]

And how has it been received? I mean, I know you’ve been from Brisbane to the Sunny Coast, Maryborough, Rocky, Mackay, Townsville, Cairns, Toowoomba.

I mean, you’re a lucky man, travelling through all these beautiful parts of Australia.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I am, indeed, and we look forward to New South Wales being us pretty soon once the borders are reopened again.

[Marcus Paul]

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But no it’s been very well received. People know in their guts that there’s never been any evidence, scientific evidence to these policies that are destroying our country, Marcus, and they’re just so pleased to see someone actually exposing this rubbish.

[Marcus Paul]

Now I’m gonna talk very soon with the New South Wales MP down in the Murray region, Helen Dalton. She is–

[Malcolm Roberts]

Oh yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

Helen is a regular on the programme, much like yourself. She’s been screaming out, screaming and really unfortunately not being had a lot of attention paid to her.

She’s copped a lot from politicians. They’ve tried every trick in the political book to silence her. She wants a water register.

In other words, she wants politicians and others like herself to have a register that’s openly publicly available where people can say exactly how much water interests they have and that should also include national companies, foreign multinationals and everybody.

She wants more accountability on water. And look, she’s had a hard time trying to get this thing through the Parliament. She’s gonna try again for a register this week. It’s very tough.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes and we’ve been calling for exactly the same thing for a couple of years now, Marcus. It’s definitely needed. Pauline has been calling for it as well.

We want full transparency, full openness so that people can see what’s happening to their water. And you know, what we’ve seen is in the last week, just at the end of last week, we saw the Water Minister, Mr. Pitt come out and big headlines were generated.

The biggest change, to the Murray-Darling basin in 10 years. And then we saw Bridget McKenzie, the leader of the Nationals in the Senate saying, “You cannot take any more water from our communities. The 450 gigalitres will not be coming from our farmers.

Enough is enough. You have taken enough.” And that’s very clear, Marcus. Yet the bloody report actually recommends quote, “work with the States to accelerate planning and delivery of the 450 gigalitres SDL water acquisition.”

This is insane. We’ve been along the same path for a couple of years now. But what the Nationals are doing is they’re responding to the pressure that we have put on them and they’ve come out now, initially they rubbished us, then they realised they couldn’t stop us because we have the data.

Then they went quiet and now they’re coming out to pretend they embrace what we’re saying, but they’re not doing it real–

[Marcus Paul]

All they–

[Malcolm Roberts]

they’re doing it in lies.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, they need to. I mean, it’s always- excuse me. I’m very sorry. It’s the first time

[Malcolm Roberts]

Bless you.

[Marcus Paul]

I’ve sneezed for ages, anyway. Hay fever, time of the year. Look at the end of the day, the problem’s always been, as you would know very well, Malcolm,

Since water has become scarce and we are a country where we do have droughts, there’s a light bulb moment that’s gone off somewhere and they thought, you know what, we can take advantage of this capitalism at its worst, and we’ll commodify water.

Well, ever since water became a commodity, something to be bought, sold and traded, that’s when the rot set in and you’re right, particularly for the Murray-Darling basin, in particular for my New South Wales listeners, we know it’s our country’s food bowl and the people of Australia deserve damn well better.

Look, I see too the Office of Scientific Integrity, you’ve spoken to Dr. Peter Ridd from James Cook University in Townsville about this issue. Is that right?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes we have, and Dr. Ridd has accompanied us on our travels from Brisbane right through to Cairns. Now he’s gonna join us again this morning.

Every one of the media conferences we’ve done with him. What he has been promoting for a while now is that we need a quality assurance system for the science.

That would then complete the scientific process. We’ve been arguing for an Office of Scientific Integrity.

There is so much dodgy science that’s not science, that’s killing agriculture in New South Wales and Queensland, Murray-Darling basin and its water allocations, international agreements that we’re supposed to be complying with, the so called vegetation protection legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that’s used to strangle development climate change policies, electricity policies, energy policies, forestry policies, coastal land resumptions where they’re stealing land rights from people who own own their houses on the Coast.

In New South Wales and Queensland, farmers lost their rights to use their land. These have all been based on dodgy science and then it’s not science.

So what we want is a proper scientific process that has quality assurance around it because these policies are strangling our country, gutting our economy, and we want this to be done properly with real integrity on the science, Marcus.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, I just wanna move to another issue. Dan Andrews and the prime minister, Scott Morrison, you say, are using competitive welfarism to replace our constitution’s bedrock competitive federalism.

What exactly do you mean by that?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, competitive federalism is where you have the exchange between States. So for example, Joh Bjelke-Petersen removed death duties in Queensland, in the seventies.

And what happened then was people then moved to the Queensland, Gold Coast in order to have their final years there and eventually die there because they would leave more money to their descendants, their kids.

And so what happened then was the other States were losing their businesses, losing their wealthy, losing their retirees. And so they enacted policies as well to remove death duties.

So we had a better and more competitive taxation system because of competitive federalism, competing between the States. It’s not ruthless cut throat competition, it’s finding out the best ways of running the State.

And that was designed by our forefathers, the founders of our constitution. What we have now is sloppiness, and there are several examples of this, but you’ve picked on one right now with Dan Andrews.

He made a mess of his State, he fell over in doing his job.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

He didn’t do his job, and as a result of that incompetence, Victoria is in a real mess. So what happens? The Prime Minister bails him out.

So the people of Queensland, the people of New South Wales, the people of South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, ACT are paying for Dan Andrews’ lack of accountability and sloppiness and his dishonesty.

[Marcus Paul]

They’re doing that of course–

[Malcolm Roberts]

And that’s competitive welfarism.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, and that’s, that welfarism you refer to, the extension of job seeker payments, even though they’re being tiered now, but it just continues, and the longer that border closures remain in play, well, the longer the rest of the country is going to have to foot the bill for it.

What about Annastacia Palaszczuk up there? Has she be missing in action? What’s happening?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes, she has been missing in action. What people need to understand about Queensland, the Labor machine runs the state. It’s ruthless and it’s not democratic government, nor is it caring and accountable.

And the corruption is flourishing across our State and local government markets, and we’ll be having much more to say about that in coming weeks, but it’s not Annastacia Palaszczuk who runs this state, it is the Labor machine.

Now what they’ve done is they’re missing in action to some extent, because they’ve handed over to the Chief Health Officer who has one priority, people’s physical health.

Well, Marcus, what about mental health? What about economic health? Because as they’re destroying our economy up here, this Queensland Labor machine that is appealing to the media and try to play to people’s emotions and heartstrings, they’re actually destroying our State and they’re not doing this in a humane way.

We have so many examples. Now your programme has led the way in exposing these things, we’ve got so many issues that are treating people inhumanely.

We’ve got kids with broken legs in hospitals, their parents from New South Wales can’t even visit them in Queensland.

We’ve got cancer patients, we’ve got babies in wombs dying, et cetera, and cancer patients not being treated all because the machine wants to be seen to be protecting Queenslanders when the machine is destroying Queenslanders.

If they really cared about people, they would identify the hotspots and ban people from there.

[Marcus Paul]

I mean, look. The other issue of course is you’ve got a lot of hypocrisy going on. We helped a gentleman yesterday who was, who’d been stuck on the Tweed Coast.

His father is in Royal Brisbane hospital. He’s had a massive head trauma, he’s on life support. They’re about to turn it off. He desperately, desperately needed to get to see his father in his dying days along with his sister.

We had to intervene. We had to go cap in hand to Queensland Health and we also spoke to the New South Wales health department and also to the wonderful people in Pauline’s office at One Nation.

We got this bloke across the border, along with his sister and we shouldn’t have to be doing this, we shouldn’t, but at the end of the day, the reason we shouldn’t be having to intervene like this and to expedite these kinds of situations for people is, well, some are getting the red card treatment.

Look at the red carpet treatment, look at the AFL officials. They can come on in, they can frolic, they can have a pool party for God’s sake on the Gold Coast.

Tom Hanks can just rock up whenever he likes, it appears, without having to go into quarantine. There’ll be 30,000 people gathering for the AFL Grand Final and everyday Queenslanders cannot gather in groups of more than 10. I mean for goodness sake.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, you’ve hit the nail on the head and that’s what I’m talking about. It’s a ruthless Labor Party machine up here that does not care about people.

Annastacia, sorry, Annastacia Palaszczuk, one of her predecessors was Anna Bligh. Two weeks before a State election, the machine promised that they would not sell assets.

Within weeks of the election, just six weeks after their promise, they flogged off billions of dollars worth of core assets in this State. It is a Labor Party machine. It’s not Queensland, it is the Labor Party machine that is uncaring and inhuman–

[Marcus Paul]

Well, problem is–

[Malcolm Roberts]

And what the AFL Grand Final should be up here, but we need to treat Queenslanders with respect.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, well, our problem is, and we’ve got to call into Deb Frecklington’s office, I mean, she’s almost, what she’s back down really now because of populism, I guess, she’s supporting Annastacia Palaszczuk. I’ve run out of time, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

See you, mate .

[Marcus Paul]

All right, buddy. Thank you so much. As always good to chat. We’ll talk to you next week, okay?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks, Marcus.

[Marcus Paul]

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, as always speaking a good deal of sense on the programme.

/by

Nationals lied about changes to Murray Darling Basin plan

, ,

Last week the Nationals claimed to have significantly changed the Murray Darling Basin plan for farmers. I want to be blunt. THEY LIED.They are wilting under the pressure One Nation has put them under through our use of facts and in response instead of doing good are trying to look good.

Take a listen to what the Nationals claimed the report said and what the report ACTUALLY says.

Transcript

Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts and I’m on the road from Rocky to Mackay in Central Queensland. I wanna make a statement about the and ask some questions about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan notice that came out of the government last week.

And I wanna ask a few basic questions after Friday’s media headlines. And I’m gonna read these questions, because I wanna make sure it’s accurate. Sky News called this the biggest change to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 10 years, oh really? The Australian announced buybacks axed in Murray overhaul.

So I asked Minister Pitt for a copy of this supposed landmark report. And this is it, 10 pages, that’s all. The recommendations are two pages and a bit, that’s it. Does it really represent any change in the current policy? No, it does not. It doesn’t say any such thing and yet the Nationals Party and the government has been saying that.

One major issue and this is the first topic. One major issue with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the last 450 gigalitres of water acquisitions called SDLs. Which is to be taken off farmers and given to the environment in South Australia. Since the plan started 2100 gigalitres of water has been taken from farmers.

That’s forced many farmers off the land and reduced our agricultural output by more than $10 billion. This is money that our economy needs especially when we try to recover from COVID. This is food that has been taken from the world’s hungry.

Now Senator Bridget McKenzie, who is leader of the National’s Party in the senate made this statement just a week ago. Quote, “You cannot take any more water from our communities. The 450 gigalitres will not be coming from our farmers. Enough is enough, you have taken enough.”

Well, that was clear, wasn’t it? But what does the reports really say? Let me read the recommendations. Quote, this is what the report says. “Work with the states to accelerate planning and delivery of the 450 gigalitre SDL acquisitions. Not stop the acquisition accelerate the acquisition.”

What of the promise to not take water off farmers? Perhaps Senator McKenzie is talking about this line. Quote, from the report, “Shift the focus away from on-farm acquisition to off-farm infrastructure.” What sort of a promise is shift the focus? These are with weasel words Minister Pitt.

450 gigalitres through fixing leaky pipes and burying irrigation channels, not possible. And for the record irrigation channels are lifelines for native Australian birds, animals and reptiles in a drought. Those canals are an entire ecosystem full of fish, turtles and crustaceans that die when you bury them underground.

This idea is literally killing our environment to save it. Secondly, as for splitting the Murray-Darling Basin authority into two, not so much. This is recommendation six, which establishes an Inspector General of Water Compliance. Now is this a new post?

No, they are simply renaming the Inspector General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources. When he was appointed, the existing Inspector Mick Keelty was called the tough cop on the block. What happened to that? This is nothing more than a re-branding exercise.

And the media has slapped it up the media has fallen for it. Does the media check anything anymore? Or do they just parrot what this government tells them? Thirdly, as for punitive powers, the Inspector General does not have any. Those powers vest with the State’s New South Wales in particular.

Where the most water rorting is going on. Has not even given the Murray-Darling Basin any punitive powers at all. If big Corporate Agriculture builds a new floodplain harvesting dam in the Northern Basin, the Inspector General has no powers to order that demolished nor even issue a fine.

The New South Wales State Agriculture Minister, Nationals Leader New South Wales, Nationals MP John Barilaro, has to make those orders and the government damn well knows it. Minister Pitt I have three questions. Who wrote this misleading press release?

Secondly, show me where in this report it actually says there will be no more buybacks from farmers? Thirdly, how does re-branding one position without any extra powers suddenly become splitting the Murray-Darling Basin authority into two? It doesn’t, does it?

I’ve heard the Nationals talk a lot of rubbish lately. But this takes the cake. These are lies they speak to distract. Under the Nationals, farmers will lose their water and rural communities will be destroyed. The only winner will be the Nationals Corporate Agriculture Mates.

When will the Nationals for a change? Join us in one Nation in putting Australia first.

/by

Murray Darling Basin investigation a whitewash

, ,

One Nation Senator Roberts expressed sheer disbelief and disappointment with the Keelty report into the Murray Darling Basin’s water allocations to farmers who need water to grow food.

Senator Roberts said, “As the nation reels from COVID-19 and faces food shortages this report is woefully inadequate and a tragic waste of taxpayers’ money. “

“An investigation should demonstrate rigour and analysis and instead Mr Keelty’s report is full of inadequacies.”

The report fails to include in its datasets this year’s substantial rainfall event and does not acknowledge rainfall within the MDB has increased over the past 100 years. Instead the Keelty analysis deceitfully uses ‘declining inflows’ as a way of arguing why farmers should be denied a fair allocation of water.

When 4000 disenchanted farmers descended on Canberra to protest the unfair allocation of water between the environment and farmers, they were promised that their zero allocations would be the subject of this review.

“It is deeply disappointing, particularly now when our agricultural productive capacity is under-utilised, that this issue was not rigorously examined by Mr Keelty.  Astonishingly the report fails to even mention those zero allocations,” added Senator Roberts.

As predicted by many farmers, the former Water Minister David Littleproud used the promise of an investigation into the MDB to quieten the crowd of protestors and conveniently shift blame to the States and irrigators.

Irrigators are suspicious of MDBA figures that show declining inflows when the Murray River has been running so high that environmental damage has resulted along the upper Murray and Barmah/Millewa forest from excessive water.

Disturbingly the report claims that environmental water is not being wasted, ignoring the unnecessary flooding of forests, excess water flushed out to sea in South Australia and keeping the lower lakes filled above their natural levels with Murray River water.

“The report may as well have been written by the MDBA itself, as it addresses none of the concerns from farmers, some of which have gone without a water allocation for 3 years.”

COVID-19 has highlighted the critical importance of Australia restoring our productive capacity across many strategic industries, including our agricultural sector.

“The Keelty report’s lack of due diligence in this investigation is akin to the last nail in the coffin of one of Australia’s most substantial food bowls. No water, no food,” Senator Roberts added.

Unsurprisingly, the report found that a lack of trust and leadership worsened the problems. One Nation calls for a Royal Commission into misconduct in the implementation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

“Trust cannot be restored until rorting has been exposed and fixed.  Australia needs management of the MDB Plan that reflects a genuine triple benefit – for irrigators, communities and the environment,” Senator Roberts stated.

200421-Murray-Darling-Basin-investigation-a-whitewash_

/by

Water Security for Farmers and Coronavirus – Rural Queensland Today with Ben Dobbin

, , ,

Ben:

Welcome back to Rural Queensland Today. 8th of April on a Wednesday morning, so much still going on with COVID-19. We know that the line is flattening, the curve is starting to flatten, but it’s still a long way to go. Senator of One Nation, Malcolm Roberts, joining us this morning on Rural Queensland Today. Malcolm, good morning. Thank you so much for being with us.

The federal government’s COVID-19 stimulus package needs to be addressed so more Australians can be more [inaudible 00:00:28] on food production. Now, One Nation has called for a guarantee of water for farmers to plant essential crops this month and this would go a long way to feeding the nation in very tough times.

Malcom Roberts:

Yes, and good morning Ben and thank you for the invitation to join your show. Yes, we have asked for that because farmers are needing a drink of water for their crops by April 15th, sorry, by May 15th so that they can get their winter crops in and going. That’s needed and that’s not going to be a subsidy or anything like that, Ben. That’s going to be pure wealth created just out of water that’s natural. It’s just been withheld from farmers mate and we need to give it back to them.

Ben:

Well, I mean there’s so much has changed. I mean Vietnam have banned exporting their own home grown rice to Australia and so we actually need to prioritise our food production for Australians because we’ve seen now what a risk to our health by letting anybody into this country. And I don’t want to in any way, I’m not trying to be racist, I’m not trying to be, but our biosecurity failed us and now is, more than any time, is where we need to shore up our food and shore up our buyer security, if ever there’s been a time. And this would go a long way to growing essential crops for the nation.

Malcom Roberts:

You’re exactly correct. We had a very strong rice production in Southern New South Wales and that has been decimated by the stupid and corrupt practises that have been going on with regard to water in the Murray-Darling basin. And that has been a fault of the Turnbull Howard government that brought in the 2007 water act and that has destroyed agriculture right across the Murray-Darling basin and it sent water to corporates and taking it away from family farmers.

And family farmers, Ben, are the guts of this country. They’re the core because they’re the ones who know that if you look after the land because you give it to your kids eventually or you retire or you sell it and use the retirement to go and live somewhere else. They’re being destroyed. And that’s what we need to bring back, family farming in this country because that’s where the communities are.

Corporates, global corporates, large Australian corporates don’t give a damn about communities. They don’t give a damn about rural Australia. They don’t give a damn about food security. It’s all a profit. And so what we need to do is restore our communities and their rural sector. There is an ideological assault on rural Australia and it starts with water policy, it continues with energy policy and it’s most of all, it’s about the stealing of the farmers rights to use the land they have bought. I don’t know if you know of Dan McDonalds-

Ben:

Yeah, sure.

Malcom Roberts:

I mean, Dan has said that every input, the farming these days is controlled by some bureaucrat. So farming has been nationalised. It’s no longer a private enterprise business. It’s been nationalised. It’s being destroyed and that’s what we need to protect because this Covid virus has exposed huge gaps in national security. We haven’t got enough face masks. We haven’t got enough ventilators. We haven’t got enough basic stuff. And yet we shifted all the production of this to overseas starting with the UN in 1975, the Lima Agreement signed by the Whitlam’s labour government and then ratified the following year in ’76 by Frazier’s liberal government.

The UN has just, we’ve taken it all off shore and we are now vulnerable. We don’t make masks, we don’t make ventilators, we don’t make cars. We make [inaudible 00:04:05] and we need to get that back into this country. We need to restore our economic productive capacity and their economic resilience. Mate, that’s really been highlighted by this.

Ben:

I agree with you. I mean we need to start building things back in Australia. There’s no two ways about it. Industry needs to happen here and for too long we’ve been relying on doing it cheaper from overseas and bring it in here.

But let’s just get back to what you’re talking about with the Murray-Darling basin. Now we know Queensland New South Wales, Victorian farmers received zero general security water allocation for irrigation over the last three years. That’s a fact. There’s no two ways about-.

They’re trying to get it under control, but big business and foreign owned companies have bought up all the allocation at different stages. They’ve sold it. It’s traded as a commodity. It’s been an absolute mess. Now how would you go about fixing it and can you get the numbers in the Senate to make some change?

Malcom Roberts:

Getting the numbers in the Senate is difficult because there are only two of us at the moment and that’s the big mess. [crosstalk 00:05:02].

Ben:

But there are people who are willing in the LNP and the national party to try and see farmers get more food secure and get more food security here in Queensland and New South Wales and Victoria.

Malcom Roberts:

There are also people in the LNP protecting the corporates and protecting the water act. And that’s what’s caused the disruption of farming in across the Murray-Darling basin, Ben. It’s not everyone in the liberal national party. It’s not for the land.

For example, have a look at Senator Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce. They were once the best speakers in parliament against this climate crap. And then they both got in the cabinet and their lips were sealed. And then even Senator Matt Canavan even spoke in favour of this climate nonsense.

And then now that One Nation is making inroads into their vote because we’re supporting coal, because we’re supporting land use being given back to farmers to control, Matt’s come out now he’s talking like one of us, but he still votes with the Trent Zimmermans and the Zali Steggles and the Graves, the same policies that are destroying land use, that are destroying farming, that are destroying [inaudible 00:06:12] in this country.

We’ve got farmers who have been told in North Queensland, I spoke to one personally, Central Queensland and Southern Queensland, who would not plant fodder during the drought because electricity prices were too damn high to pump water. I mean this is insane. That’s where we’ve got to with the policies that the liberal nationals have pushed. We’ve destroyed our farming sector [so] that John Howard [could] comply with the Kyoto protocol, which he proudly discussed, has stolen the land rights, the land use rights of farmers in this country. They’ve stolen the water through the water act, which was Turnbull and Howard, and then Howard complying to the Kyoto protocol and the liberal nationals complying with UN agreements, including the Paris Agreement, has wrecked our energy sector.

I mean there’s nothing more fundamental than being able for a farm to buy his or her land and then use it as they want. There’s nothing more fundamental than water. Then there’s nothing more fundamental than energy. Energy prices were decreasing for the last 170 years, relentlessly decreasing in real terms, Ben, and with the policies of the labour greens and liberal nationals party in the last 20 years, they’ve doubled. That’s the reverse of human progress. This is insane what’s going on in this country.

Ben:

Yeah, I think a lot of people are frustrated and clearly you are as well.

Malcom Roberts:

And angry.

Ben:

Yeah, and that’s the big thing. Do you think that they’ve offered enough the government as a stimulus package to try and get this back under control with COVID-19? Was it too little too late? I do know that now is not the time to politicise things, but do you think they’re doing enough?

Malcom Roberts:

Well, I think they are doing enough financially. They’re not doing enough health-wise. The countries that are leading the way and around the world are the East Asian countries of Taiwan and South Korea especially, and to a lesser extent, Singapore.

Now what’s happened is that in the West we’ve tried to balance health and the economics. That is not working. In East Asia, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore, they made health number one priority. They got it under control, had rapid testing, very widespread testing, not only tested for Covid virus in people but tested for temperature because they would basically say, you’re coming into work today, Ben. Here, take your temperature. Mate, you’ve got a hot temperature over here and then we’ll test you for Covid virus. If you have got no temperature, then you go to work.

When they test you for Covid virus, then they say, “Ben, you’ve got Covid virus. Isolated. Off, away you go.” Or if you’re free of Covid virus you get a little note saying Ben Dobbin has got a high temperature today. He’s free to go to work.

What they did was they isolated the sick and the vulnerable, the elderly, the people with chronic disease problems. They isolated them. And Taiwan has had hardly a blip in its economy. South Korea got off on the wrong foot to start with. It went down Italy’s track and then it quickly copied Taiwan and then they got the back and so got everyone back to work.

What we’ve done is we’ve isolated everyone. Instead what we need to do now that we’ve got it starting to get it under control, Ben, we need to see the triggers in the government’s plan for changing our strategy to isolate those with the virus, isolate those vulnerable to the virus and let everyone get back to work. That time could be coming soon, but the government has not focused on that.

What the government is focused on is compromising health and economic activity. And you can’t do that because you end up undermining the health. What we’ve got to do, Taiwan has got the same population of Australia. They’ve had five deaths and they’ve got it earlier than we did, and they hammered it. And that’s what we need, real leadership, real strength.

At the moment, yesterday, Prime Minister Morrison and his health advisor released the broad statement about their modelling, but they didn’t give us the model. They didn’t tell us what the projections were in the future. We need to know them. They need to stop hiding on that. That’s the other thing they did in Taiwan and South Korea, they gave people the truth, gave people the information. That gives people confidence. It also gives people the sense of responsibility because people who are free to make up their mind usually make it the right way. And that’s what they did in Taiwan. That’s what we need to get to.

Ben:

Fantastic. You said it well. Malcolm, appreciate your time this morning. Thank you so much for being with us on Rural Queensland Today.

Malcom Roberts:

Anytime, Ben.

Ben:

Good on you. Malcolm Roberts, Senator for One Nation. This is Rural Queensland Today across the Resonate Broadcast network.

/by

One Nation Murray Darling Basin Update

,

The recent bushfires, some rains and now the CoronaVirus has taken attention away from farmers still struggling with drought or the Murray Darling Basin plan which is still failing to deliver water to farmers.

One Nation has not forgotten about our farmers and is still fighting for a fair and equitable allocation of water.

In this video I give a quick summary of my investigation so far and then an update on what we are continuing to do behind the scenes to restore the productive capacity of regional Australia.

TRANSCRIPT

Some people recently have asked us for an update on what we’re doing in the Murray-Darling Basin. It’s still a very very important issue. Just because some rains have come does not mean it’s over yet. There’s a long way to go. So I’ll just first of all, remind people of what we’ve done. Back in 2017 in February, I listened to people in the Ballone Shire Council, in their chambers in St. George and they told us about the devastation due to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the plan in Southern Queensland around the border and Northern New South Wales.

We listened to those people and we saw that they were right. Then we went as a result of that. Pauline and I went down the whole Murray River, right down to the barrages and the river mouth and we learned quite a bit from irrigators and farmers in northern Victoria, Southern New South Wales and South Australia. Then I got knocked out of the Senate and we were about to continue doing a lot more. When I came back in, the first thing we did, was start to understand the Murray-Darling Basin again.

So, we first of all did an overflight. We took off from Albury went right down the Murray River, down around the lower lakes, the Coorong and then up to Mildura, then up the entire Darling and then flew to the north of the basin above Charleville and then came back to Goondiwindi and then over the Clarence River catchment area, and then down the centre of the basin and actually back to Mungundi and then down the centre and then to Albury. We got a good overview of the whole lot. Wasn’t much water anyway, because it was so dry.

Then we went on the ground and we went to Southern Queensland, Northern New South Wales listening to people; irrigators, communities, businesses. We then went down, flew down to Adelaide and went down the lower lakes, the Coorong, then back up through the irrigated areas and non irrigated areas of South Australia, then along the Murray listening to people in southern New South Wales, Northern Victoria. And then we went along the Murrumbidgee.

And we went down the Murrumbidgee and partly under the Murray again, then up the Darling and ended up at Broken Hill. We’ve got a little bit more travelling to do, a little bit more listening with people on the ground in Central and New South Wales. And we’ve also got a few issues that we want resolved. But most importantly, we want to listen now to some experts. These are not technical experts as such, not because they’ve got, they’re not experts because they’ve got initials after their name or they’ve got a title.

These are experts, like former people in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Highly regarded. People who’ve done a lot of research, a lot of experience in the area. We want to listen to them, and then we pull it all together. But just now I just want to bring you up to date with a few things. First of all, the need for trust. There’s very little trust. Why? Because there’s so little data, there’s so little openness, there’s so little listening from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

And as a result, people are blaming each other between the regions. The flood harvesters in Northern New South Wales and Southern Queensland are blaming South Australia. South Australians are blaming everyone. Southerners in New South Wales and Victoria are blaming the Northerners and South Australia. And we’ve been told that we will get a water registry. Well, the federal government has had eight years to do that and still hasn’t got a water registry.

So what we’re doing is, we’re calling on the federal government to put in place a water registry in 12 months over the next 12 months. You should should be able to do that in a year. The data is largely there. But it needs to be part of a larger watering reporting system comprising the whole basin so we know where the water is coming in, we know where the water is being stored and we know where it’s flowing out. That’s essential. So that people have an understanding, a transparent understanding of the water flows.

The second thing. We want irrigation water to be treated somewhat as environmental water. The losses in irrigation water flow into the environment. Some of the irrigation water itself flows into the environment. So what we’re calling for, is carriage losses in irrigation water to be treated as environmental water because it ends up in the environment. Third thing as part of that by the way, we want farmers to be recognised that they are protecting the environment.

Their experience, their own livelihoods and the future value of their land depends upon them taking care of it. These people are the guardians of the land. Instead of being seen, treated as villains, they need to be treated as guardians of the land. The fourth thing we want is integrity. We want to restore integrity to the Basin. There is corruption.

We know that! Some of the irrigation authorities have a lot at stake and some of the people are telling us around the Basin that some irrigation authorities are corrupt. And with the amount of money involved, it’s easy to see how that could happen. And we know that some people have become very very wealthy as a result. So what we’re calling for is a Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission. Now what we’ve got to do, I just told you, we’ve still got a little bit more to do.

And then what we’ll do is we’ll put a plan out to the whole community. We’ve already released based upon our early understandings at the water convoy. Last year we released our basic plan. It was just a discussion paper, to get people’s feedback. That will become the basis of a policy. It is not our policy yet, but we will, we’ve got a little bit more work to do and then we will restore water to the farmers through a policy that we’ll be releasing to everyone. The plan ultimately is to restore water to the farmers and have a solid sustainable Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

/by

Rally for Farmers in Cobram

,

Great turnout to our meeting in Cobram. I spent 3 hours listening to farmers and the community and will take their concerns and ideas back to Canberra.

We need to Pause The Plan now. Thanks WIN News Shepparton and Grace Evans for the coverage.

/by