News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Twynam sale needs govt assurances: NFF 

Twynam sale needs govt assurances: NFF

28 May, 2009 06:28 PM
A WATER purchase of the magnitude of the $303m Twynam water buy-back will have huge flow-on impacts for agricultural production and regional communities, the National Farmers Federation has warned today.

But the buy-back does meet the NFF’s stated requirement that any water purchase must be from willing sellers.

Because of the size of the purchase, however, the NFF is calling on the government to answer three questions:

• What specific community study has been undertaken to ascertain the impacts of this purchase on affected regions and communities?

• In those affected communities, what adjustment measures is the Government proposing to assist?

• With such a large water buy-back, once the stated environmental outcomes have been achieved, what options are available to farmers to access any excess water for production?

With the drought taking a hefty toll on food production, supplementing water for production and the flow on regional community benefits this delivers, must be of the highest priority, the NFF said.

But the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, John Cobb, took a harder line saying the sale was proof "the government's war on regional Australia is intensifying".

"I am appalled that not only is my electorate being hit again by the attack on regional communities, but astonishingly there are no guarantees that any of the $303 million of taxpayers money Twynam’s has just pocketed will even stay in Australia.

"Here we have the government ripping 240 gigalitres of water out of regional communities, an amount which has the potential to create hundreds of jobs in regional Australia, grow thousands of tonnes of food and fibre to feed people and permanently stimulate the economy."

Mr Cobb says perhaps the most frightening aspect of this sale is that taxpayers have just paid an Argentinean company $303 million and that money could end up being spent off shore at a time resources and funds need to be invested in regional Australia.

But Agriculture Minister Tony Burke hit back accusing Mr Cobb of stepping over the line by arguing farmers have no right to choose how to manage their own properties.

"I haven’t met one farmer who thinks a politician would know how to manage a property better than the farmer does," Mr Burke said.

"The Rudd Government believes farmers are innovative and know their own land so they should decide how they run their businesses.

"Until now, I thought the National Party shared that view."

Mr Burke said the Federal Government was also investing in important irrigation infrastructure, with $300 million announced in the Budget for new on-farm irrigation efficiency grants.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It looks good on paper. BUT perhaps the bottom line should have said that they have to let that much water flow through their property because, as one farmer has already pointed out, this water was not available anyway.
Posted by Helen Clark, 29/05/2009 9:01:33 AM
At least the government (taxpayers) is paying for water now. Not like in the good old days when the State government just stole water allocation under a compulsory aquisition scheme that saw many like myself lose 80% of our water entitlement. That was 5 years ago now! Funny part about it is that it made no difference to the nett flow in the Murray Darling system.
Posted by Dave, 29/05/2009 9:08:30 AM
I am astounded that Government is still out there making these mega purchases without any thought to the effect they will have on farming communitites. But one thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that Queensland has made no contribution at all (to my knowledge) to the reduction of water entitlements in the system. Why haven't the media made more of the fact that NSW irrigators have had the compulsery aquisition (theft without compensation) of in many instances of eighty percent while places like Cubbie have had no reduction... perhaps we should be praising the Queensland Government for having the guts to stand up for its farmers and at last Phil Costa seems concerned. Where is the grand scheme from the Commonwealth government to the cover the whole Murray Darling system with equal and fair reductions over the whole systyem? Trev
Posted by Trev, 1/06/2009 5:50:56 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
26 May, 2009
27 May, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you believe human activity is the cause of climate change?

Yes
(43.6%)

No
(48%)

Undecided
(8.4%)

Total Votes: 1138
Poll Date: 24 May, 2009

Most popular articles




North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...