Posts

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

,

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

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

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

Transcript | Part 1

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Payman: Cynical.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Are those workshops online?  

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

Senator ROBERTS: How many online and how many—  

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.  

Ms Connell: to give you that answer.  

Transcript | Part 2

Senator ROBERTS: Ms O’Connell or Ms Connell—  

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the water quantities.  

Ms Connell: The overrecoveries?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Connell: We can provide you with that information.  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Has there been any more information?  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: The Department of Treasury?  

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

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

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

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

Mr Southwell: 6.36 gigalitres.  

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: So, no specific water was released?  

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

Senator DAVEY: Only state—  

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

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

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

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

Mr Southwell: The entitlement has been transferred now.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Southwell: The evaluation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Southwell: No.  

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

Mr Southwell: On notice.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Connell: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s change the target.  

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

Transcript | Part 3

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept that.  

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: So federal funding through the states?  

Ms Connell: Funding under FFAs, federal funding agreements.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: So that includes past—  

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Labor Dashes Hopes for Murray Darling Basin Community

,

The Albanese Labor Government are shifting the goalposts on the Murray Darling Basin Plan. There’s only 42GL left to complete the water acquisitions across the whole basin, so the pain is almost over and there’s still the 450GL of water for South Australia, which means this doesn’t need to be taken from irrigators. And there’s another 3 years to find that water through capital works.

In this Estimates session I asked whether these last few measures would be the end of the nightmare for Basin communities. I was expecting a yes – instead I got a no.

It seems the bureaucracy and the Albanese Government are hell bent on taking everything for themselves, forcing even more farmers off their land. Their answer certainly sounds like they intend to demand more water for the environment when the plan ends in a few years, starting the nightmare over again.

Landholders, including farmers, just want to know what the government is planning so they can adjust. Clearly the Government does not understand farming to know this, or simply don’t care.

The science underpinning the scheme is flawed, which is unsustainable, hurts farmers, fibre producers and the environment.

One Nation would complete the remainder of this plan and then call it done. No more water to be taken off the farmers. We would also sell the 78GL of water over-purchased by the department back to the farmers, to grow food and fibre to feed and to clothe the world.

Anything else is sabotaging the bush. #nofarmersnofood

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS:  With all the numbers flying around, I feel confused sometimes; things don’t seem to change. I would like some clarification. Talk of water buybacks created a lot of anger when the Albanese government came to power. That talk seems to have gone quiet. There was a plan to buy back 44.3 gigalitres immediately, a threat to use buybacks to get another figure to complete the plan—I will raise that in a minute. How much has been purchased so far? Your website is still saying that you need another 38 gigalitres, yet we heard the tender was oversubscribed.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the open tender, we were seeking 44.3 gigalitres for the Bridging the Gap component. I want to be specific here; that was for Bridging the Gap. It was oversubscribed. We had 250 tender responses, which accounted to 90.34 gigalitres in terms of across the catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So double?  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes, just over double. These Bridging the Gap requirements are catchment specific. There is a certain amount of water to be recovered in a certain catchment. It was oversubscribed in total, but specifically we are purchasing to an amount in a particular catchment. It also has to represent the right type of water, and value for money, before we proceed. From that 44.3 gigalitre tender we have agreed to purchase 26.25 gigalitres towards that target. We will, as a result of that, complete the requirements in three of those specific catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So you still have the fourth catchment to do?  

Ms O’Connell:  There are six catchments in total.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You still have three of the six to do.  

Ms O’Connell:  That’s right; to complete the recovery.  

Mr Southwell:  That is correct. There are three catchments that we expect to recover through this tender, subject to all contracts being finalised, and three to go. I might take this opportunity to give an overview of where we are in the process. The tender sought to recover 44.3 gigalitres. When all of those contracts are signed, we expect to have spent around $205 million. Contracts are still being signed. That is important to note in terms of where we are up to. A table on our website provides an outline of each catchment, the volumes we expect to have recovered and the volumes that remain.  

Senator Davey:  That table was only uploaded today.  

Mr Southwell:  It was uploaded yesterday, I think, Senator.  

Senator Davey:  Late yesterday.  

Mr Southwell:  I understood it was later than 9 am yesterday morning.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You will still buy the 90 gigalitres that came in as tenders?  

Mr Southwell:  No.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Just the 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  That tender process was specifically for Bridging the Gap, and the volumes that we are purchasing are for Bridging the Gap.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That is 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I note that the Restoring our Rivers Framework, currently under consultation, is for the full 450 gigalitres South Australian flow; your website says 424. Can I have this confirmed: this is the same bucket of water, whether it is 424 or 450—not two buckets?  

Ms O’Connell:  No, there are not two buckets. The requirement is 450 gigalitres, of which 26 gigalitres is contracted, delivered or underway. The remaining component is 424. So it is one lot of 450, with 26 already recovered.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Senator Hanson-Young, in an interview with the ABC last November, said there was a further 300 gigalitres of water to be found to complete the plan, not 38 gigalitres. This was not including the 450 gigalitres. Is that statement correct? If so, can you explain how that figure is arrived at?  

Ms O’Connell:  We would have to see what exactly she was referring to and get that quoted number.  

Chair:  Could you table it? Do you have it with you?  

Senator ROBERTS:  I don’t have it with me, no.  

Mr Fredericks:  We will take that on notice.  

Ms O’Connell:  For us to be able to answer that, would you be able to provide the document as well, so we can make sure we are referring to the right thing?  

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes. By our calculations, if you get the remaining 38 gigalitres on buybacks, you will also have 78 gigalitres of excess purchases in some bailees. Will you sell this back to the farmers?  

Ms O’Connell:  On Bridging the Gap, which is what we have been talking about, it is a catchment-specific amount that we need to recover. We don’t intend to buy more than what is needed. There is a minor amount of incidental overrecovery that happens when you buy water, but that is minor and incidental. Our intention is to bridge the gap through the 44.3 gigalitres.  

Ms Connell:  In relation to the 78 gigalitres of overrecovery you referred to, there are two issues to highlight. The number of overrecoveries won’t be confirmed until New South Wales water resource plans are accredited. A significant proportion of that figure relates to overrecoveries in New South Wales. The other thing to keep in mind is that water is currently held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and used at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, once you get that figure, the 38, and the 450, minus what is underway now, is it done? Is there anything else? Can what remains of farming in the Murray Darling Basin get on with growing food and fibre to feed and clothe the world, without this nightmare of the plan hanging over farmers? Is that the end of it?  

Senator McAllister:  I think the best way to describe the government’s intentions is to implement the plan in full. That was the purpose of the legislation that went through the parliament. As you have observed, there is substantial work to do. That work includes the recovery associated with Bridging the Gap, which the officials have been talking about. It also includes establishment of the framework for reaching the 450-gigalitre target. The government is presently consulting on that framework. That document is in the public domain and we are seeking public comment about that approach. There are other elements of the work associated with completing the plan; the officials can talk you through that. Rather than accepting your summary of the work before us, I would prefer to point to the way the government characterises the work that is underway.  

Senator ROBERTS:  What amounts are required to finish the plan? That is what I heard you say: when the plan is finished, that is it—no more buybacks.  

Ms Connell:  In the first instance, the plan doesn’t finish. It is an ongoing instrument, subject to a review by the Murray Darling Basin Authority in 2026. That will be the first review of the Basin Plan. Under the current Basin Plan, there are two key targets.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That means that the plan could change.  

Chair:  Senator ROBERTS, the river is a living thing. The reason why we ended up with the Murray Darling Basin Plan in the first place was over-extraction and the utilisation of the river.  

Senator Davey:  Happy to replace the chair to answer questions from the committee. Thank you, Chair.  

Chair:  Thank you, Senator Davey. Minister, maybe you could help us out here. It is a point of clarification that is worth making.  

Senator McAllister:  I am happy for officials to talk through the approach. The main point is that the government’s commitment is to implement the Basin Plan in full. Under the previous government, insufficient progress was made on some important initiatives. Progress basically stalled for an entire decade. We talked about this a lot during the committee stage of the Senate debate. You are aware of the government’s perspective on this. It is for that reason that we had to change the legislation. We are presently consulting on the key initiatives that are underway. The officials can talk you through all of the important next steps.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the Basin Plan, it is about sustainable river systems long-term management. There are two major components in the plan to be fulfilled that need to be delivered. We have been talking about Bridging the Gap. The remainder is the 450 gigalitres. There are new legislative time frames for delivering those that provide more time, more options, greater flexibility and greater accountability to be able to deliver on those targets. Beyond that, there is a review role for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of the long-term sustainability and sustainable management of our river systems. That review is not until 2026, which would foreshadow what might be required in the longer-term future.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Let me understand that, Ms O’Connell. The plan as it is—as we have just been told, it’s a living document and a living plan and it could change—the 450 and the 38, that’s it; but it could change in 2026 when the review is done. Because it is a living plan, the plan could grow another arm and leg.  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes.  

Mr Fredericks:  I don’t think we can pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  People’s livelihoods are at stake, Mr Fredericks.  

Mr Fredericks:  I understand that fully. There is a review. It is in 2026. It will be very well conducted by the MDBA. I don’t think that, sitting here in 2024, we, as departmental officials, can really pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I am thinking of farmers in southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who are wondering whether or not to invest in their future and the future of their communities. Businesses in many rural communities have gone downhill, in large part due to the Water Act and the plan. These people want to know that they’ve got something more than two years. They just want to know: is this the end?  

Senator McAllister:  Can I make this point, Senator Roberts? The origin of the plan lay in a recognition across the country that we had overallocated the Murray-Darling Basin system. That had very significant consequences for basin communities. It had very significant consequences for the food and fibre producers in the Murray-Darling Basin, who depend on reliable access to water. It had consequences, of course, for the natural systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, which were under enormous pressure. It’s a while back now, but it really came to a head in the millennium drought. We saw some very severe impacts across the basin at that time. There was a recognition across the country, including within the basin, that we couldn’t go on in this way and that the overallocation needed to be addressed. That is the origin of the plan.  

It matters to farmers and food and fibre producers that these issues are tackled and addressed because there is an interrelationship between the access to water by communities, the access to water by farmers, the availability of water for environmental purposes and, increasingly, the recognition that cultural water matters to First Nations people as well.  

All of these things are interrelated and, at their heart, the success of all of those stakeholders, and the interests of all of those stakeholders, lies in having a healthy, working river that is being appropriately managed. Those are the underlying ideas that drive our government’s commitment to implementing the Basin Plan.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, while we do argue about the science underpinning the Basin Plan, let’s set that aside. Modern civilisation cannot exist without a healthy environment. We get that. A healthy environment cannot be achieved without modern civilisation because it reduces the pressure on the environment. Landholders are the number one protectors of the environment—that means farmers. At the moment, farmers and small businesses in rural communities see a shifting of the goalposts repeatedly. That’s what’s bothering them. They get the point about the need to protect the environment. They’re tired of having the goalposts shifted on them. That’s why my question was: is this the end of it? So far, what we’ve got is: ‘No, it’s not. In 2026 we’ll have a review and see what happens.’ 

Senator McAllister:  The plan has been in place for a very long time, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Since 2007.  

Senator McAllister:  Our party has been very consistent in supporting the implementation of that plan. Our view is that the plan should be implemented. For much of that period, that was the stated position of the coalition parties as well. Unfortunately, in the final years of the last government—in fact, really across the period of the last government—the Liberal and National parties undermined and sabotaged the plan’s implementation.  

Senator Davey interjecting— 

Senator McAllister:  That has caused a very significant problem.  

Chair:  That is the minister’s view. She is entitled to answer the question as she sees fit.  

Senator Davey:  I dispute that. The terminology ‘sabotaged’ is absolutely— 

Senator McAllister:  Senator, I think you said— 

Chair:  The minister will finish her— 

Senator Davey:  We might have had a different perspective on how to implement the plan.  

Chair:  Senator Davey, the minister will finish her answer and then you will have a turn.  

Senator McAllister:  I think the core facts are before us. In nine years, that government delivered just two of the 450 gigalitres—two gigalitres, under the 450-gigalitre target— 

Senator Davey:  We were focused on the environment and a sustainable level— 

Chair:  Senator Davey! 

Senator McAllister:  which would have meant that the plan would have been completed at some time around the year 4000. Steps needed to be taken to get the plan on track. We are taking those steps. I think the government’s priorities in terms of implementation are very clear. As I’ve indicated a couple of times now, we’re engaged in consultation with the community about the practical ways that we’re going to take the next steps together. 

/1 Comment/by

Murray Darling Farmers Fightback

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

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

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

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

/5 Comments/by

Making Sense of the Murray-Darling Basin Water Amendment Bill

,

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: 

  1. That the Senate notes that:
    1. the water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023 was passed with substantial amendments; and
    2. the amendments were not reviewed by a committee and have not been approved by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council.
  2. 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: 
    1. the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made;
    2. matters relating to the approval of the amendments by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council; and 
    3. any related matters. 
/1 Comment/by

The Murray-Darling Basin Environmental Catastrophe Bill

I’ve travelled the Murray-Darling Basin from its northernmost point in Queensland, through New South Wales, Victoria and into South Australia. I’ve listened to the people along the way including the Aboriginal people for whom the water in the river is their life and central to their culture, health and happiness. As one elder said, “We were used to justify buybacks and now we have been forgotten”.

The mismanagement of the river flow across the basin is based on unmeasured guesses, not data. Government bureaucracy attempting to control the water in the river spells death to farming, death to our precious natural environment, death to the regions, and death to Aboriginal culture and society. The real agenda here is that the many towns along the river are considered to be ‘in the wrong place’.

Entire agricultural areas are on the minister’s hit list because they ‘shouldn’t be there’. But you can’t grow food on politics alone, Minister Plibersek. You need water and you need irrigators crazy enough to try and feed Australians while negotiating the insane levels of bureaucracy imposed over the years by politicians who haven’t got a clue how farming works.

The Murray-Darling Basin accounts for $22 billion in food and fibre production. What effect will this cruel policy, delivered to satisfy ignorant leftist city dwellers, have on our beautiful country? With 2.2 million new arrivals requiring food in the last 12 months alone, measures to reduce water for food production are the reverse of the policy we need.

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, the Murray-Darling Basin is an important topic for One Nation because the Murray-Darling Basin starts in Queensland. Just because the water ends up in South Australia does not mean it’s South Australian water. Queensland has a say in this as well, and I will continue to stand up for Queensland farmers, regions and communities. 

During the last Senate session, I spoke about this Labor government’s decision to withdraw funding from the Emu Swamp Dam near Stanthorpe in Queensland’s Southern Downs. This area is in the Murray-Darling Basin and is one of the areas that ran dry in the last drought, requiring water to be trucked in for weeks using a convoy of water tankers. The Emu Swamp Dam was a proposal for a modest dam to retain 22 gigalitres of water for local residents. When I asked Minister Watt about the suffering and economic damage that decision would cause, the minister led the Senate on a merry dance that social media has rightly smashed and ridiculed. 

Minister Watt avoided admitting that, yes, the Albanese government cancelled the Emu Swamp Dam and, yes, the Albanese government came back a year later and cancelled all the infrastructure upgrades in the region just to make sure the dam was never built. Such is the ideology behind the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. Minister Watt, a Queensland senator, was happy to tell the residents of the Southern Downs that, in the next drought, they will have to truck their water in again—and in the next and the next and the next. Wow! What arrogance from Canberra bureaucrats and city politicians like Minister Watt! What arrogance from environmentalists who would see Australia destroyed as long as they get their way and as though humans don’t matter!  

These same urban elites go to Coles and buy their Australian almond milk for their half-strength lattes—organic, of course—buy Australian bread, buy Australian meat and buy Australian vegetables. Where do these Green and Teal fools think these products come from? From the Southern Downs and from farmers across Queensland right through to the Murray-Darling Basin—the very farmers this legislation is smashing, gutting. Among all of the technical, I speak in favour of humans and people. 

Before you say it’s not happening, let me share with the Senate a Hansard record of question time in the Victorian parliament from just two weeks ago. One Nation member for Northern Victoria, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, asked the Victorian water minister what her government’s position on water buybacks was. Here’s part of Labor Minister Shing’s excellent, heartfelt response: 

At the moment, we are in a process of discussion and debate at a federal level about the future of the Murray–Darling Basin plan. 

Oh, really? I thought it was settled. Apparently that was government misinformation as well. Her remarks continued: 

In 2018 all jurisdictions party to the Murray–Darling Basin plan signed up to what is known as the socio-economic criteria, meaning that water could not be returned if it did harm to communities—that is, that any return would need to satisfy a test of positive or neutral socio-economic outcomes for communities. 

Victoria remains committed to achieving the outcomes and the objectives of our share of returning environmental water to the plan in the terms that we agreed. Victoria opposes buybacks. 

Her words. Victoria: 

… oppose buybacks for a range of reasons and based on modelling … showing that irrigated production job losses of over 40 per cent were observed in Victorian communities due to water recovery for the environment, including in Cobram, 40 per cent of job losses; Kerang, 43 per cent of job losses; Cohuna, 43 per cent of job losses; Kyabram, 42 per cent of job losses; Tatura, 42 per cent of job losses; Rochester, 42 per cent of job losses; Pyramid Hill, 66 per cent of job losses; Boort, 66 per cent of job losses; Shepparton, 61 per cent of job losses; Swan Hill, 53 per cent of job losses; Red Cliffs, 76 per cent of job losses; and Merbein, 50 per cent of job losses. 

The Victorian government has this information because they funded Frontier Economics to conduct a study on the effect of water acquisition on rural communities. Queensland Premier Palaszczuk has not done the same thing. Under Premier Palaszczuk, if you don’t live in a Labor electorate in the urban south-east, you don’t exist. For the Queensland Labor Party, Queensland ends in Toowoomba and Noosa. Good on Victoria for defending their rural communities; shame on Premier Palaszczuk for selling out regional Queenslanders. 

Forty per cent job losses is a common figure I hear when I travel to Queensland basin towns like St George, Dirranbandi and Charleville. This is not a matter of those people walking away and having to make a new start somewhere else—if they can find accommodation and a job, of course. Rural communities have a critical mass, the point below which the whole town ceases to be viable. The doctor leaves, the bank closes, the school closes, small businesses close and, suddenly, the town becomes unlivable. Many towns in Queensland and across the basin are facing that point now. Another 760 gigalitres of buybacks will kill them off. The shocking truth is this: wiping out towns and agriculture across the basin is an intended consequence of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. 

When I was first elected to the Senate and travelled down the Darling and Murray system, I spoke with a representative of the Murray-Darling Basin in the river lands. His words have stuck with me: ‘The Murray-Darling Basin agenda is based on the principle that many towns along the river are in the wrong place. Those towns would not be built today because of their reliance on irrigation and have to go.’ They have to go? That’s the real agenda here. That’s why this bill allows the minister to buy water from anywhere in the basin, not just within a valley. As Minister Shing, the Victorian Labor Minister for Water, rightly pointed out, ‘This act removes the socioeconomic test.’ 

Now, finally, Minister Plibersek’s intentions are out in the open. Entire agricultural areas are on the minister’s hit list, areas that ‘shouldn’t be there’. When environmentalists and city politicians like Minister Plibersek hold this bill high, declaring, ‘Let the rivers run,’ what they really mean is death to family farms and death to the towns they support. At least be honest about it. What effect will this cruel policy, delivered to satisfy ignorant leftist city dwellers, have on our beautiful country? The Murray-Darling Basin accounts for $22 billion in food and fibre production needed to feed and clothe the world. Hell, it’s needed to feed the two million people this Labor government let into Australia in the last 12 months. We have 2.2 million new mouths to feed and the government’s response is to reduce the water available to grow food. There are five million tourist visa holders that have to be fed. No wonder our beautiful country is in trouble. We have a government that can’t put two and two together. 

I’ve travelled the basin, listening to people across the whole basin—from the northern basin, including Charleville, Dirranbandi, St George and Stanthorpe in Queensland; from Albury and Tenterfield in the east of New South Wales; from Broken Hill in the west of New South Wales; from Cobram in regional Victoria; through Menindee, Mildura and Renmark; all the way to Goolwa and the Murray mouth in South Australia. I’ve listened with farmers, irrigators, researchers and environmentalists. I’ve consulted with Aboriginal people, for whom the water in the river is their life, the centre of their culture and the centre of their health and happiness. Drought harms Aboriginal people and much damage was done even as the plan was nearing completion. And damage continues to be done. 

To illustrate this, I saw an ABC video made in October this year that talked to Aboriginal Australians along the river. When buybacks were happening in 2012, they were promised some of the water would be returned to their river in improved flows. Two thousand eight hundred gigalitres of acquisition later and those improved flows for Aboriginal water have never happened. What we’ve seen is a pattern of water flow that’s harming the connected system. One reason is water trading. I’m not talking about productive water trading to keep family farms going; rather, we see foreign owned corporations exploiting water trading to keep their massive monoculture plantings alive. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of permanent planting—almonds, citrus and grapes—are pulling water from places like southern Queensland down below the border to western Victoria and to South Australia. Those water allocations are being sent down in floods to increase the amounts that arrives. Aboriginal communities are left without the regular environmental flows that are so much a part of a river tribe’s life—that’s their word: ‘life’. As one elder said, ‘We were used to justify buybacks and now we have been forgotten.’ It sounds like the Voice. They were used to try and get it through, and now they are forgotten. 

The other major culprit is environmental watering. That watering is being sent down in floods, which, once again, contribute to flooding along the river and do enormous environmental damage. In years past, the flooding that happened in the spring and early summer and during tropical storms in the Queensland basin went down the river as a flood, watering the associated forests. The difference today is that those short periods of natural flooding were between natural long periods with low river flow. That natural cycle allowed the banks to dry and harden to withstand the next flood. What used to happen was the water in the dams was released across the year for mostly local use. If it was not used, it was carried over. Most areas in the basin still have carryover water. Now we have huge amounts of water being sent south to keep massive permanent plantings watered and huge amounts being sent down to water native forests that don’t need it, and the river is stuffed with severe, catastrophic riverbank erosion and forest drowning—and forests dying. That’s the problem this government should be addressing. Instead, Minister Plibersek and her electorate full of city lefties were declaring, ‘Let the river run!’ The minister is killing the natural environment in the name of saving it, ignoring the harm that’s being done—and being done in the name of the Basin Plan. 

There’s nothing in this bill that addresses the fundamental flaw in the plan. The mismanagement of river flow is based across the basin largely on unmeasured guesses of water flow—not on data, not on measurements. It does not matter if you’re mismanaging 2,800 gigalitres or 3,200 gigalitres, the outcome will be the same: death to farming, death to our precious natural environment, death to the regions, death to Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal society. 

Where are the targets for minimum and maximum heights of riverbanks to protect and repair the environment? Not here. Where’s the plan to repair hundreds of kilometres of erosion down the Goulburn, Murray and Edward rivers? The Murray-Darling Basin Plan destroyed those rivers, and nothing in this bill will fix them. This bill will continue the environmental catastrophe. I see limits to diversion for irrigation, yet I don’t see limits for diversion for environment watering—meaning how much water is to be taken out for the drowning and killing of forests as opposed to how much water is to be kept in the river for desalination, fish health and so on. Where are the hard limits? Rivers suffer when water is taken out. It makes no difference if the water is being extracted for irrigation or to drown forests. Where are the water quality limits to control blackwater, which is caused through the overwatering of wetlands, like the Barmah-Millewa Forest, under orders from the Commonwealth? Not here. Where’s the ratio of water over the barrages as against basin inflows, which would ensure the rivers actually flow? Not here. Where are the explicit statements of minimum flows for Aboriginal water in each river? Not here. Real plans are based on measurements and data. Without measurement of river and creek flows across the Murray-Darling Basin, there is no plan, just political patronage, corruption and control. 

Where’s the solution to this salination in the lower lagoon of the Coorong? It’s time to talk about the subject that shall not be spoken: the basin inflow from the south-east of South Australia, which is water supposedly from outside the basin that flows into the basin to refresh the water in the Coorong and Lower Lakes, inflow that before Western settlement delivered hundreds of gigalitres of water a year and flushed the Coorong and Lower Lakes to maintain a healthy environment. Years of draining the south-east to create a productive farming area have sent the flow directly out to sea, bypassing the basin instead of into the basin, where, by the way, it’s damaging the saltwater environment of the sea and the seagrass beds that stabilise the coastline. 

One Nation supports the farming community in the south-east of South Australia and seeks to protect vital agriculture in the area. The initial round of redirecting the drains back into the basin was completed, and basin inflow has been partly restored. The South Australia government now counts this flow is basin SDL recovery, after many years of my campaigning for that very outcome. Thank you. The south-east flow restoration project takes water from some of the drains and redirects the water into Tilley Swamp and then along natural watercourses through Salt Creek into the lower Coorong. Being a swamp, the water soaks in and forms part of the unconstrained aquifer that flows into the Coorong and Lower Lakes at a depth of as little as one metre. 

The aquifer flow is not measured, yet it should be. The improvement in water quality in these waterways suggests more water is arriving that the 25 gigalitres that has been credited—much more. I foreshadow my second reading amendment calling on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to measure all inflow into the basin from the south-east, both surface and aquifer flow. This surely must be a prudent exercise before embarking on costly water buybacks that will have a catastrophic effect on the basin just to meet arbitrary water acquisition targets—and those are the points that I don’t have time to go into. 

This plan is already highly complicated, and this bill makes it more complicated. It involves micromanaging with slogans. It involves taking taxpayer money to defeat productivity on farms and to raise food prices. Taxpayer money is being stolen to raise food prices. New South Wales farmers are moving to the Flinders River in North Queensland, and we now see the Labor-Greens-Pocock-teal coalition in full flight, destroying our country. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 isn’t a plan to improve the health of our rivers and lakes; it’s an open declaration of war on farming and rural communities, ideology driving a political and social war to the exclusion of decency and common sense. Making farming harder will reduce the supply of fresh fruit and drive up prices at a time when inflation is already out of hand. The Albanese government does not need another policy failure to add to its collection. I urge the government: don’t do this! For the sake of every Australian who eats food, we oppose this bill accelerating the death knell of economic food production and food security. In opposing this bill, One Nation protects the natural environment, protects food security, protects economic activity and protects regional communities. 

/11 Comments/by

Labor’s Latest Scheme to Buyback More Farmers’ Water

The Murray Darling Basin river system has driven prosperity in our beautiful country and it can continue to do so if we can save it from the city bureaucrats and Labor’s ideologically driven policies.

I put forward a motion on the Water Amendment Restoring Our Rivers Bill 2023 because it should not have any further consideration until the Albanese Government properly consults with the States. There was no Murray Darling Basin consultation and that’s the problem with this bill.

The Council of Water Ministers met in August, yet as of this November sitting we have still not seen the communication from that meeting. It seems clear that the states have not collectively signed off on the bill. I urged the Senate to support my motion to send the bill back to the Minister with a clear message to remove the sections the States do not support. Let’s complete the plan, and let’s do it properly for a change.

Transcript

I rise to take note as a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community. It’s no surprise to One Nation that the Senate is once again debating the lack of government transparency—transparency in this case being defined as: what’s the government hiding this time? Consultation from the Labor Party always stops at 39 votes. Everyone else is on a need-to-know basis. 

In the case of Senator Davey’s document discovery, the government has decided the Senate does not need to know the basis for government policy in a basin that accounts for $22 billion in food and fibre needed to feed and clothe the world, a basin that’s home to 2.3 million Australians, including those in my home state of Queensland. Apparently, we Queenslanders do not need to know what informed Minister Plibersek’s Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill—a bill on which this document discovery would have cast light. The fundamental failure of the Albanese government when it talks about consultation is its failure to understand that consultation requires disclosure. Already the government has been forced to make three pages of amendments to the bill to make it legally workable. How does anyone get a bill that wrong? Refusing to disclose—that’s how. Refusing to consult—’consult’ does not mean a quick whip around the staff room at the CFMEU or asking the luvvies at the ABC and the Guardian how to run the country. The Albanese voice referendum showed the stupidity of asking the Canberra bubble and inner city socialists what the rest of the country thinks is a fair thing. In real Australia, consulting means listening, sharing and learning. 

Senator Pauline Hanson and I have consulted with industry stakeholders and toured the basin, starting in Charleville, in Queensland, all the way to Goolwa, in South Australia. I’ve spoken to independent researchers and even shared a plane for three days with Topher Field as we flew over the basin to understand it and film it. I’ve driven the length of the Murray-Darling Basin three times and my staff another two times, most recently last Christmas. Along the way, I’ve listened to amazing farmers displaying a level of resilience that at times is superhuman. I’ve consulted with Aboriginal people, for whom the water in the river is their life, the centre of their culture and the centre of health and happiness. I’ve spoken with business owners fearful for their future in an agricultural industry this government is determined to replace with fake food made in urban intensive-production facilities. This is an amazing connected river system that has driven prosperity in our beautiful country and can continue to do if only we can save it from Labor’s inner-city ignorance and ideologically driven policy. 

Today the Senate will vote on my motion to prevent the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 from being given further consideration until the Albanese government properly consults with the states. The Water Act 2007, upon which the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based, is very clear. The plan is a consensus document of the four states. The federal government does not get a vote, because it’s a servant to the states, not the master of the states. The ACT does not get a vote as it’s a territory, not a state, and that’s fine since the ACT clearly runs the federal government anyway. Giving the ACT a vote would be, in fact, two votes. 

The bill digest contains all the information needed to support my motion. It admits Victoria has refused to sign the new agreement, because Victorian farmers have given up enough water already. Good on the Victorian parliament for standing up for its constituents. Good on New South Wales Premier Chris Minns for being brutally honest in saying the New South Wales government is only signing up to the $700 million in federal buybacks federally for water projects and he is not signing up for water buybacks until after those projects are completed in 2027. The government has no consensus on water buybacks, which are, at best, two all. The rest of the bill contains a lot of good reforms to add accountability, improve measurement and reporting, align spending guidelines and budgets with what is needed and extend the deadline for completion. 

The council of water ministers met in August, yet we still have not seen the communication from that meeting. It’s now November. It seems clear that the states have not signed off on the bill in toto. I urge the Senate to support my motion to send the bill back to the minister with a clear message: take out the bits the states do not support, and let’s get the rest of this bill, which is almost all of it, through the Senate this sitting. Let’s complete the plan and let’s do it properly for a change. 

/by

Just add water – Farming saves Australia

, , ,

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

/1 Comment/by