Farmers

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The Morrison government <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-04/pitt-committs-no-more-buybacks-creates-new-water-compliance-body/12627758" target="_blank">today</a> declared it will axe buybacks of water entitlements from irrigators, placating farmers who say the system has <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/murray-darling-water-woes-strip-another-100-jobs-from-drought-hit-rice-towns-20191126-p53e9k" target="_blank">damaged</a> their livelihood and communities.
Instead, Water Minister Keith Pitt says the government will scale up efforts to save water by upgrading infrastructure for farming irrigators in the Murray Darling Basin.
The move will anger environmentalists, who say water buybacks are vital to restoring flows to Australia’s most important river system. It also contradicts <a href="https://theconversation.com/recovering-water-for-the-environment-in-the-murray-darling-farm-upgrades-increase-water-prices-more-than-buybacks-145289" target="_blank">findings</a> from the government’s own experts this week who said farm upgrades increase water prices more than buyback water recovery.
The government has chosen a route not backed by evidence, and which will deliver a bad deal to taxpayers and the environment.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356465/original/file-20200904-20-s3srfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="A farmer stands in the dry river bed of the Darling River"> The government will no longer buy water from farmers for the environment. Dean Lewins/AAP
<h2>A brief history of water buybacks</h2>
Farmers along the Murray Darling are entitled to a certain amount of river water which they can use or sell. In 2008, the federal Labor government began buying some of these entitlements in an open-tender process known as “buybacks”. The purchased water was returned to the parched river system to boost the environment.
In 2012, the Murray Darling Basin Plan was struck. It stipulated that 2,750 billion litres of water would be bought back from irrigators and delivered to the environment every year. The buyback system was <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-02/windsor-report-slams-murray-darling-authority/2742822" target="_blank">not universally supported</a> – critics claim buybacks increase water prices, and hurt farmers by reducing the water available for irrigation.
The Coalition government came to office in 2013 and adopted a “strategic” approach to water buybacks. These purchases were made behind closed doors with chosen irrigators.
In <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/procurement-strategic-water-entitlements" target="_blank">a review</a> of these buybacks released last month, the Australian National Audit Office found many of these taxpayer-funded deals were not good value for money.
The federal government ordered the review after <a href="https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/P959%20A%20little%20more%20valuation%20%255bWeb%255d.pdf" target="_blank">controversy</a> involving the 2017 purchase of water from two Queensland properties owned by Eastern Australia Agriculture.
The government paid A$80 million for the entitlements – an amount <a href="https://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/6898970/government-paid-almost-double-for-watergate-buyback/?cs=14480" target="_blank">critics said</a> was well over market value. The deal was also contentious because government frontbencher Angus Taylor was, before the purchase, a non-financial director of the company. The company also had links to the Cayman Islands tax haven.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356468/original/file-20200904-20-1b3l01g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Keith Pitt speaks in Parliament as Prime Minister Scott Morrison watches on"> Water Minister Keith Pitt, pictured during Question Time, is the minister responsible for the new approach. Mick Tsikas/AAP
<h2>Infrastructure subsidies: a flawed approach</h2>
The Coalition government is taking a different approach to recover water for the environment: subsidising water infrastructure on farms and elsewhere. This infrastructure <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/cash-splash/11289412" target="_blank">includes</a> lining ponds and possibly levees to trap and store water.
The subsidies have cost many billions of dollars yet recover water at a very much higher cost than <a href="https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/stop-wasteful-water-infrastructure-subsidies-for-mdb-%E2%80%93-study" target="_blank">reverse tenders</a>. This approach also reduces the water that returns to streams and groundwater.
 
The justification for water infrastructure subsidies is that they are supposedly less damaging to irrigation communities. But the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) concluded in <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications/insights/economic-effects-of-water-recovery-in-murray-darling-basin" target="_blank">a report</a> published this week that on-farm water infrastructure subsidies, while beneficial for their participants, “push water prices higher, placing pressure on the wider irrigation sector”. This is the very sector the subsidies purport to help.
So why would the government expand the use of water infrastructure when it costs more and isn’t good value for money? The answer may lie in this finding from the ABARES report:
<blockquote>
Irrigators who hold large volumes of entitlement relative to their water use (and are frequently net sellers of water allocations) may benefit from higher water prices, as this increases the value of their entitlements.
Farmers with limited entitlement holdings however may be adversely affected, as higher water prices increase their costs and lowers their profitability.
</blockquote>
In other words, the “big end of town” benefits – at taxpayers’ expense – while the small-scale irrigators lose out.
<h2>Missing water</h2>
Adding insult to injury, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists released a <a href="https://wentworthgroup.org/2020/09/mdb-flows-2020/2020/" target="_blank">detailed report</a> this week showing the basin plan is failing to deliver the water expected, even after accounting for dry weather. Some two trillion litres of water is not in the rivers and streams of the basin and appears to have been consumed – a volume that could be more than <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/the-mystery-of-the-murray-darlings-vanishing-flows/12612166?nw=0" target="_blank">four times</a> the water in Sydney Harbour.
The Wentworth Group says stream flows may be less than expected because environmental water recovery has been undermined by “water-saving” infrastructure, which reduces the amount of water that would otherwise return to rivers and groundwater.
This infrastructure, on which taxpayers have spent over A$4 billion, has not had the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134492030077X" target="_blank">desired effect</a>. Research has found those who receive infrastructure subsidies increased water extractions by more than those who did not receive subsidies. That’s because farmers who were using water more efficiently often planted thirstier crops.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356467/original/file-20200904-24-1orkxk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Dusk at Menindee Lakes in the Murray Darling Basin"> The government took a strategic approach to water buybacks in the Murray Darling Basin. Shutterstock
<h2>We deserve better</h2>
It’s clear taxpayer dollars are much better spent buying back water entitlements, through open tenders, rather than subsidising water infrastructure. We can, and must, do <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8489.12288" target="_blank">much better</a> with water policy.
Today, the federal government has doubled down on wasteful spending at taxpayer expense – in a time of a COVID-induced recession.
So what is on offer from the Morrison government? Continuing to ignore its own experts’ advice and delivering yet more ineffective subsidies for water infrastructure. Our rivers, our communities, and all Australians deserve much better.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/quentin-grafton-1941" target="_blank">Quentin Grafton</a>, Director of the Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292" target="_blank">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-plan-to-scrap-water-buybacks-will-hurt-taxpayers-and-the-environment-145613" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Morrison government plan to scrap water buybacks will hurt taxpayers and the environment

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
Farming families and communities in Queensland’s remote north are being left behind by the digital economy, putting them at significant social and economic disadvantage.
Our <a href="https://www.cairnsinstitute.jcu.edu.au/connectivity-and-digital-inclusion/" target="_blank">report</a>, launched in Cairns today, details the impacts of low levels of “digital inclusion” among farmers in Far North Queensland (FNQ), for whom reliable internet connection is not a given.
People in rural and remote areas – including Indigenous communities – score much lower than urban Australians on the <a href="https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/" target="_blank">Australian Digital Inclusion Index</a>. This index – which measures access to technology, affordability of connections, and digital ability – shows that North West Queensland (which includes FNQ grazing lands) is one of the least digitally included regions in Australia.
The index also shows that farmers have lower digital inclusion scores than others in similar socioeconomic circumstances. Farmers’ experiences of digital exclusion are therefore worthy of investigation.
While some Australian farmers are getting online and adopting various forms of agricultural technology such as drones, sensors and automated vehicles, many are being left behind. Given that a <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australias-tech-future" target="_blank">2018 federal government report</a> on Australia’s tech future predicted that agriculture will be transformed by digital technologies, it is important to understand how best to help farmers in remote areas get on board.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287675/original/file-20190812-71897-1024wxf.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Australian Digital Inclusion Index - Queensland (2018)
Our research revealed a range of findings about the impacts of low levels of digital inclusion for FNQ farmers. Here are four of the main insights from the report.
Farmers pay more for less
Challenges with unreliable services, network congestion, slow internet speeds, and data caps in rural and regional Australia are <a href="https://theconversation.com/regional-australia-is-crying-out-for-equitable-access-to-broadband-69711" target="_blank">well documented</a>. In rural FNQ, mobile, internet and landline connections are often intermittent or drop out altogether. Therefore, many farmers “layer up” on service plans and devices.
For example, a FNQ farming family may have several mobile phones and plans with different providers, a satellite phone and plan, a home landline, and a wireless or satellite connection to the National Broadband Network (NBN). An urban family, meanwhile, may have just one provider that guarantees access and unlimited data to all devices in the household. Farmers pay more for less.
Data is scarce in remote households
Data scarcity is also an issue for farming families, particularly in remote households with only satellite internet connection. Unlike the unlimited fixed-line NBN plans available in urban areas, plans using NBN’s <a href="https://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/media-statements/lift-off-for-first-nbn-satellite" target="_blank">Sky Muster</a> satellite are capped, and often more than half of the data is only available in off-peak times, such as between midnight and 7am.
This affects how remote families live, and limits people’s access to digital opportunities. Farming women in particular have to monitor the data consumption of adults, kids, workers, and visitors – often there is not enough to go around.
Deciding what digital activities (banking, homework, job-seeking, video-calling) to prioritise – and who misses out – can be stressful and contentious.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288109/original/file-20190815-136208-1r32oob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Data scarcity is also an issue for farming families on the Savannah Way, Far North Queensland. Amber Marshall
Farmers need to be online to comply with the law
To meet their <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/meat-safety-and-traceability/red-meat-integrity-system/about-the-livestock-production-assurance-program/lpa-accreditation/" target="_blank">accreditation requirements</a>, FNQ cattle producers must complete online modules on various topics including biosecurity, transport methods, and animal welfare. Complying with <a href="https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/management/vegetation/clearing" target="_blank">vegetation clearing laws</a> also involves accessing <a href="https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/management/vegetation/maps/map-request" target="_blank">maps</a> that are only readily available online. Many farmers struggle to gain access to the internet, log in on a suitable device, navigate the online platforms, and complete the mandatory training. Many therefore risk noncompliance.
For similar reasons, some graziers are resisting digitisation of the <a href="https://www.nlis.com.au/" target="_blank">National Livestock Identification System</a>, which is used to track the movement of cattle nationally. This system is essential for biosecurity, meat safety, product integrity, and market access. Breaches to the system could have catastrophic consequences for the beef industry, for instance in the event of a freeze on the wider movement of cattle.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287676/original/file-20190812-71940-iww83c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Farmers complete an online LPA animal welfare module at a Northern Gulf Resource Management Group toolbox talk, Almaden Pub. Amber Marshall
The network is essential
FNQ farmers rely on mobile and internet coverage across properties and between townships for all sorts of activities, from coordinating the everyday school run to responding to an emergency such as a bushfire. Although two-way radios still play an important role in emergency response, people can only respond if they are in range.
In many instances, FNQ farmers can only access reliable phone or internet from their house or the nearest township. While the national <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/phone/mobile-services-and-coverage/mobile-black-spot-program" target="_blank">Mobile Black Spot Program</a> is helping to bridge gaps in mobile phone service along major road routes, affordable solutions are needed to beam wifi signals substantial distances from the house.
What can we do to help?
There are several things government and industry could do to help improve digital inclusion in FNQ agricultural communities:
<ul>
<li>Improve mainstream telecommunications and internet infrastructure, and embrace alternative hardware solutions in communities and on properties. For example, <a href="https://www.wi-sky.com.au/" target="_blank">Wi-Sky</a>, which began as a rural cooperative, has built its own towers to offer alternative internet plans to locals in several remote sites in Queensland and New South Wales.</li>
<li>Redefine affordability to take account of the “layering up” phenomenon when developing telecommunications policy at all levels. Current methods to determine affordability do not accurately reflect the true cost and value for money of digital connectivity in rural areas. Telecommunications companies could revise their plans to give their rural customers better value for money, for instance by offering tailored mobile plans for intermittently heavy data users who are out of range for long periods.</li>
<li>Boost farmers’ digital ability to help them do business in the digital economy. Targeted digital ability programs could foster specific skills that farmers want and need, such as using the livestock identification system. These programs could be delivered in partnership with industry organisations such as <a href="https://www.agforceqld.org.au/" target="_blank">AgForce</a> that already have people on the ground in rural and remote areas.</li>
<li>Finally, give farmers a voice. Our policy-focused report was accompanied by two other reports focusing on <a href="http://accan.org.au/grants/completed-grants/1432-connectivity-and-digital-inclusion-in-far-north-queensland-agricultural-communities" target="_blank">participants and particular case studies</a>. Farmers are telling us what they need to take part in the digital economy. It’s up to government and industry to listen, and to work with communities to devise solutions for improved access, affordability and digital ability.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121743/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
</li>
</ul>
Amber Marshall, Research fellow, Queensland University of Technology.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/logged-out-farmers-in-far-north-queensland-are-being-left-behind-by-the-digital-economy-121743" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Farmers in Far North Queensland are being left behind by the digital economy

<html><body>
Queensland cattle farmers affected by flooding are being urged to contact their banks by the Australian Banking Association (ABA).
The Australian Banking Association CEO Anna Bligh said Australia’s banks stood "ready to help" farmers, including cattle farmers, who have been devastated by floods over the last few days and urged anyone needing assistance to contact their bank directly. 
“After suffering through an extensive drought, many Queensland Cattle farmers have now been cruelly devastated by these floods,” Ms Bligh said. 
“Banks stand ready to help cattle farmers and others affected by these floods and other natural disasters through deferred loan repayments, waiving fees and other arrangements.
“Banks have dedicated hardship teams ready to assist, however it’s important that customers contact their bank directly to flag they are experiencing hardship,” she said. 
Services on offer to customers who have been affected by natural disasters or other circumstances beyond their control can include: 
<ul type="disc">
<li>A deferral of scheduled loan repayments</li>
<li>Waiving fees and charges, including break costs on early redemption of Farm Management Deposits</li>
<li>Debt consolidation to help make repayments more manageable</li>
<li>Restructuring existing loans free of the usual establishment fees</li>
<li>Deferring interest payments on a case-by-case basis</li>
<li>Offering additional finance to help cover cash flow shortages</li>
<li>Deferring upcoming credit card payments</li>
<li>Increasing emergency credit card limits</li>
<li>Waiving early termination fees for customers who wish to access their term deposits.</li>
</ul>
</body></html>

Farmers

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Farmers

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News