Too many unanswered questions about $5m for the South Arm pipeline project

Peter McGlone says federal funding for a recycled water pipeline for South Arm is short on detail, and governments should come clean on the project

SINCE the first announcement of $5m federal government funding for the South Arm recycled water pipeline it is remarkable how little information has been released and how many questions remain unanswered. It is still in doubt whether the $5m is guaranteed to flow through.

On August 11, 2021, the Australian government’s Assistant Minister for Industry Development Jonathon Duniam issued a media statement saying: “The Morrison government has committed $5m to Tasmania’s

South Arm Recycled Water Pipeline …”. No other information about the grant was included.

Minister Duniam, then Tasmanian Primary Industries and Water Minister Guy Barnett and the pipeline proponent Craig Ferguson issued a media statement on September 30, 2021, that provided no new information.

Both media releases were filled with guff about the wonders of the National Water Grid Connections program and how beneficial, potentially, generally, more irrigation water will be for agriculture on the South Arm Peninsula. Both releases told us what we already knew, that this pipeline “will allow water from the Blackmans Bay Water Treatment Plant to be delivered to the South Arm Peninsula for irrigation purposes”. They said nothing about what specifically the funding was for, whether it had been provided or what conditions applied.

Shortly after this I did an ABC Radio interview with the golf course and pipeline proponent Craig Ferguson. This shed little light on the funding but the proponent was trying very hard to convince people that the pipeline funding was to provide water for agriculture and not for the golf course. My response was that the funding appears to be for treating the water as well as building the pipeline and treating recycled water is critical for the golf course but optional for agriculture. It will ensure they meet a permit condition that requires the golf course remains open to the public at all times. Treating the recycled water may make it usable by more landowners but may reduce its potential benefit for agriculture.

In November an article appeared in the South Arm Peninsula Residents

Association newsletter. The proponent was clearly keen to emphasise that: “This funding was assessed exclusively on the benefits to the regional agriculture of South Arm”. No evidence for this was provided. Ironically, the very next paragraph emphasised that the pipeline project has been planned to deliver water for the golf course. No further information was provided about the $5m grant.

The rest of the article repeated the guff about the amount or water available, ‘possible’ users of the water and how much extra land

could ‘possibly’ be used for agriculture. This seemed designed to distract from the lack of information about the grant. After five months we knew nothing more than $5m was committed.

In November, we asked the Australian Greens senators to ask questions during the federal budget estimates process. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Standing Committee provided some specific answers but dodged other questions.

We found out that the Tasmanian government was the grant applicant on behalf of the pipeline proponents. Funny that no one had stated this earlier.

We also found out that: “As at 26 November 2021, no funding had been paid to the Tasmanian government for the package.” This had been omitted from ministerial media releases but explains why the funding had only been “committed”.

We found out that the first $5m was scheduled for delivery on October 31, 2021, but was held up because certain milestones were not met. It seems that there had not been confirmation of “funding partner contributions” (including from the state government which is a requirement for this funding program) and the “construction timing” could not be provided presumably because the treatment plant has yet to be assessed.

The answers provided confirm that the pipeline project involved treating water to class A but it fails to confirm if federal funds would be used for building the treatment plant.

Despite Senator Peter Whish-Wilson asking several questions about whether the funding was actually about irrigating grass for a private golf course, the answers were decidedly evasive. The answers were long and vague and did not mention a golf course but referred to “a range of broader outcomes and beneficiaries”.

It is hard to believe the proponent’s claim the application to the Australian government was assessed “exclusively on the benefits to the regional agriculture of South Arm”. Despite all the grand claims of the benefit to agriculture, the information released to the Senate did not show any farmer or landowner was committed to invest in the pipeline and buy water.

We are left with so many questions: Why did the state government fail to divulge that it made the application to the federal government on behalf of the proponent and that it is required to make a financial contribution?

Given the pipeline will cost $11m and the Australian government has committed $5m, will the state government be spending $6m on this project?

Why have ministers

Duniam and Barnett been unwilling to say if funding would help build the proposed treatment plant?

Now that the Australian and state governments are partners and co-funders in the pipeline will they be more or less interested in assessing the impacts of the pipeline and golf course on the endangered spotted handfish?

Is the proposed funding really just to build a water pipeline to benefit a proposed private golf course?