This report is a step-by-step guide to valuing compensation in the Lower-Darling. Major changes to the management of the Lower Darling will affect the whole community. To date only one stakeholder, major agribusiness WebsterLtd, has been compensated by the Commonwealth. The region’s other businesses and property owners should assess how Webster’s compensation was calculated in

This report is the first in a series that highlights how the Murray–Darling Basin Plan has increased the flow of money and water to big agribusinesses and has increased the vulnerability of everyone else in the Basin– Aboriginal people, floodplain graziers, downstream communities and small irrigators. [READ FULL REPORT]

The ABC Board carries the ultimate responsibility for the independence and integrity of the national broadcaster. In previous eras both sides of politics made inappropriate partisan appointments to the ABC board. Despite the ‘arm’s length, merit based’ reforms made in 2013, the appointment process has once again become deeply politicised. Basic governance standards are being

Since allegations of large-scale water theft were aired on Four Corners in 2017, a flood of media reports have shown that the $13bn Murray-Darling Basin Plan is not being well implemented: agency cover ups, political and regulatory capture, agencies with cultures of non-compliance, dodgy water deals, alleged fraud and unlawful amendments. [READ FULL REPORT]

The Australia Institute welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on the Long-Term Diversion Limit Extraction (LTDLE) factors. LTDLEs are required to determine how much water has been recovered to meet the government’s water recovery target under the Murray-Darling Basin reforms. LTDLE factors need to be resolved to bring certainty to communities and water licence

Proposed changes to the Water Act reduce accountability, parliamentary oversight and facilitate changes to the Murray Darling Basin Plan that are based on political convenience rather than science. The bill should not be passed.

A proposed amendment to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan would use ‘supply measures’ to change the Sustainable Diversion Limits and increase water use by irrigation. The proposed supply measures are inconsistent with the Basin Plan and likely to be unlawful.

The Australian Government bought 29 gigalitres of water for $80m in the Condamine-Balonne valley. The vendors originally insisted on $2,200 per megalitre. But after negotiation, the Government paid a higher price – $2,745 per megalitre. Worse, the water has no legal status outside the farm gate and shouldn’t be counted towards the water recovery target.

As Australians face sea level rise, extreme weather and increasing heatwaves polling shows most want adaptation costs to be footed by fossil fuel companies, not ratepayers. The polling also found two third (67%) of Australians (east coast states) believe state and federal governments are not doing enough to prepare for the impacts of global warming.

FOI documents show Barnaby Joyce and Steve Ciobo’s “letter of support” for Adani’s coal project sent to the Chinese government was in response to Adani’s request “to help secure Chinese financing”. DFAT also met Korea’s Ex-Im Bank in 2016 to discuss the project, on Adani’s request. Despite an earlier FOI initially capturing “several hundreds of

The Minister for Water, Barnaby Joyce approved the $17m purchase of water in the Warrego valley after criticising the Labor government for the same thing, but at less than half the price. This was a deal that required amendments to the Basin Plan to later adjust Basin Plan limits between valleys, outside the parliamentary process. 

The Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) is proposing a major amendment to the Murray Darling Basin Plan based on its Northern Basin Review,1 conducted over four years. The amendment would reduce the water recovery targets for the Northern Basin from 390 GL to 320 GL per year, a reduction of 70 GL. This amendment is

Corruption costs 5% of GDP worldwide. The cost of corruption to economies is well established, and much research exists on the impact of corruption on investment, business costs, efficient allocation of capital and economic inequality.  Trust in government is at a historic low in Australia, and according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) Australia

Stopping the NAIF loan to Adani and redirecting it to other industries makes good sense economically, environmentally and politically. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) is a federal agency that provides concessional finance. Adani has applied for close to $1 billion in concessional finance from NAIF for its coal mine and rail project in Queensland.

The Australia Institute surveyed 1,412 Australians about which federal Ministers they had heard of. Respondents were presented with a list of 20 Ministers, and former Minister Matthew Canavan, and were able to select as many as they had heard of, or select “None of these”. Similar questions were asked previously in surveys since March 2016,

The Australian government appears to be actively soliciting financing from foreign governments and investors towards Adani’s coal mine and rail line, projects it plans to subsidise.

National poll asked 1,421 Australians about the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine.  The poll, conducted online for The Australia Institute through Research Now, in late September, before revelations about Adani’s corporate record were aired on 4 Corners on the 2nd of October. More Australians oppose Adani’s mine than support it, and a huge majority oppose

What we do and don’t know about mines, closures and rehabilitation in Victoria. Little data is available to the public on the clean-up from the mining boom. State government agencies often lack basic information on how many mines are in operation, with still less published on closures and abandonments.

Queensland government will be “substantially involved” in any loan to Adani under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF), as outlined by the Department that helped design the NAIF, in its submission to the Senate NAIF inquiry. This account has been confirmed by the Queensland government’s own submission, which notes that Queensland’s “roles and responsibilities… through

The Australia Institute made a submission to the Senate Economic Committee’s Inquiry into the governance and operation of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF). Over the past year The Australia Institute has investigated the governance and operations of the NAIF. NAIF is entrusted with $5 billion of public funds and has an important role in

The Australia Institute made a submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee regarding the inquiry into the Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 (the Bill). Our submission notes the merits of the Bill’s proposed amendments, in relation to the Adani coal mine but also more broadly, as the new tests would apply

The Australia Institute made a submission to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee regarding the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. The Australia Institute acknowledges the merit of government financing, including on a concessional basis, to address areas of public good, promote sustainable economic development, to address market gaps, and to help with managing risk. However,

The Palaszczuk government’s special royalty deal with Adani remains secret after Treasury blocked a Right to Information request. 2000 pages relating to the ‘clear’ and ‘transparent’ royalty framework were almost entirely redacted. Public servants expressed concerns about analysing the deal after it has been offered. The Queensland Treasury has refused to release the royalty subsidy

The Australia Institute Tasmania commissioned a survey, conducted by ReachTEL, of 927 residents in the federal electorate of Lyons on the night of the 17th July 2017. Less than one in five (16.9%) voters saying the industry has a positive effect on other fishing industries, while around one third (33.5%) say it has a negative effect