MURRABIT dairy farmer Andrew Leahy (The Guardian, June 25) is dead right to refer to Water Minister Tanya Plibersek’s $300 million in compensation for water buybacks as a “sugar hit” and “slap in the face” for the regions.
I was in the Swan Hill, Gannawarra and Loddon shires last week and river communities are dismayed about the buyback program.
One farmer told me the region had surrendered one third of its irrigation water to buybacks, and would be surrendering another third under this round.
The nation’s major agriculture forecasting agency ABARES projects that a 225-gigalitre buyback scenario (one half of the 450 gigalitres Labor wants to recover above the original 2750-gigalitre target) sees northern Victoria with the largest reduction in water use in the southern basin, at 6 per cent.
ABARES also projects northern Victorian water prices will rise by 13 per cent, second only to a 20 per cent increase in the Lower Darling.
I have been making the same point that Andrew Leahy did: namely, that the $300 million one-off compensation promised by Labor pales into insignificance to the ABARES projected $111 million in annual farm produce value lost under the 225-gigalitre buyback scenario.
In fact, $300 million is exactly double the $150 million in annual losses if a 325-gigalitre buyback scenario occurs.
Minister Plibersek’s compensation is a pittance compared to the blown-out $216 billion cost of Victorian Labor’s Suburban Rail Loop, with the Albanese government committed to provide $2.2 billion – and likely a lot more – to finish it.
The former Coalition government had established – with Labor’s support – a socio-economic impact test that prevented buybacks devastating regional communities.
The Coalition government focused on infrastructure and efficiency improvements as a win-win for river communities and the environment.
The Albanese government ripped up bipartisanship on the basin plan and teamed up with the Greens to axe the socio-economic impact test, for political objectives to win seats in South Australia.
