nsw have your say

Search by postcode or suburb SearchSearch

1.Name

Jon-Maree Baker

2.Organisation

Namoi Water

3.Address

PO BOX 548 NARRABRI NSW 2390

4.Email

[email protected]

5.Stakeholder Group

Aboriginal/cultural heritageCommunity memberEnvironmentFishing/recreation▶ Irrigator/commercialLocal government/utilitiesLocal landholderState/Australian GovernmentOther

6.Please specify

7.Water Sharing Plan

Adelong Creek Water SourceAlstonville Plateau Groundwater SourcesApsley River Water SourceCastlereagh River above Binnaway Water SourceCommissioners Waters Water SourceCoopers Creek Water SourceDorrigo Plateau Surface Water Source and Dorrigo Basalt Groundwater SourceGwydir Regulated River Water SourceHunter Regulated River Water SourceJilliby Jilliby Creek Water SourceKangaroo River Water SourceKaruah River Water SourceKulnura Mangrove Mountain Groundwater SourcesLachlan Regulated River Water SourceMacquarie and Cudgegong Regulated Rivers Water SourceMandagery Creek Water SourceMurrumbidgee Regulated River Water SourceNew South Wales Murray and Lower Darling Regulated Rivers Water SourcesOurimbah Creek Water SourcePhillips Creek, Mooki River, Quirindi Creek and Warrah Creek Water SourcesRocky Creek, Cobbadah, Upper Horton and Lower Horton Water SourcesStuarts Point Groundwater SourceTarcutta Creek Water SourceTenterfield Creek Water SourceTomago Tomaree Stockton Groundwater SourcesToorumbee Creek Water SourceUpper Billabong Water Source

All Topics

Upper Brunswick River Water Source▶ Upper Namoi and Lower Namoi Regulated River Water SourcesWadella Creek Water SourceWybong Creek Water SourceMore than one relevant plan

8.Please specify all relevant plans

9.Submission to the Natural Resources Commission

10.Submission to the Office of Water

11.If you would like to upload a file please select one of the following

Submission to Natural Resources CommissionSubmission to Office of Water▶ Submission to both Natural Resources Commission and Office of Water

12.Please upload file to the Natural Resources Commission

13.Please upload second file to the Natural Resources Commission

14.Please upload third file to the Natural Resources Commission

15.Please upload file to the Office of Water

16.Please upload second file to the Office of Water

17.Please upload third file to the Office of Water

18.Please upload file to both the Natural Resources Commission andOffice of Water

http://engage.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/survey_tool/download_file/61132 (fileattached).

19.Please upload second file to both the Natural Resources Commissionand Office of Water

http://engage.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/survey_tool/download_file/61137 (fileattached).

20.Please upload third file to both the Natural Resources Commission andOffice of Water

21.Submissions relevant to the NRC's review will be made publiclyavailable on the NRC's website. If you wish to have your submission keptconfidential, please check this box.

Supporting Sustainable Water Use in the Namoi Catchment

Namoi Water

Submission to National Resources Commission and NSW Office of Water

Namoi Regulated Water Source Water Sharing Plan

February 2013

Namoi Water

Chairman : Jono Phelps

Executive Officer : Jon‐Maree Baker

PO Box 548 Narrabri NSW 2390

PH: 02 67925222 FX: 02 67925225 MB: 0488 925222

EM : [email protected] WEB: www.namoiwater.com.au

P2 Namoi Water Submission to NSW Office Water : Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Namoi Regulated Water Sources 20.1.2013

Introduction

Namoi Water is the peak industry group for irrigated agriculture in the Peel, Upper Namoi and

Lower Namoi Valleys in the North West of NSW. We are a non‐profit, non‐political organisation

supporting our members to achieve a sustainable irrigation industry that meets the

environmental, economic and social needs of our local communities. Namoi Water makes this

submission on behalf of our membership collectively, however each member reserves the right

to independent view and submission on any issues they deem relevant.

We welcome the opportunity to provide comment to the review by the National Resources

Commission and NSW Office of Water on the Namoi Regulated Water Sharing plan. The release

of the final Regulated Water Sharing plan in 2004 was extremely disappointing for water access

licence holders who had invested enormous time, effort and financial resources in the water

reform process over a lengthy period of time to see Ministerial changes made without

consultation. We seek this review process as an opportunity to highlight the impacts of these

changes and to bring about a more relevant WSP supported by the community.

We seek replacement of the Namoi Regulated Water Sharing plan on the basis of the review

criteria, we suggest there are a number of issues that need to be address and have listed those

of highest priority in our submission. In particular wording changes made to the final plan that

did not reflect agreement reached by the river management committee resulted in significant

socio‐economic impacts. There are a number of rules that could be rewritten to improve

implementation, understanding and for simplicity of management.

As part of the review process we seek an update to the State Water Management Outcomes

Plan which is now well overdue for its 5 year review and update. The SWOMP sets the over‐

arching policy context, targets and strategic outcomes for the development, conservation,

management and control of the State’s water sources. In developing the 2004 Namoi Regulated

Water Sharing Plan the SWOMP targets were included to provide a benchmark as to the valleys

performance in sustainable water resource management. Regardless of the decision to either

replace or extend the water sharing plans now due to expire, an update of the SWOMP is

urgently overdue.


Assessments of socio‐economic impacts in the Namoi have been undertaken by Deloites Access

Economics a copy of the final report “The Value of Water to the Namoi Catchment” is attached

to this submission. The report combines three models (1) a water and landuse model of the

Namoi Catchment; (2) a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model with the Namoi

Catchment as a discrete region in the global economy and 3) a community level disaggregation

resilience model. Whilst the purpose of the scenarios run for this report is to assess a drier

climate scenario and the MDBA Basin Plan, the model can be rerun using scenarios to show the

impact of the Water Sharing Plan in removing water from productive use via rule changes and

reduced access.

The accountability of environmental water provisions in the plan remains a key issue for water

access licence holders, with monitoring and reporting on the linkage between flow provisions

and environmental water requirements being sought. We refer to the National Water

Commission plan assessment as at 23rd January 2012 which highlights a number of issues for

consideration in particular the monitoring of plan effectiveness is not consistently reported in

publicly available documents. Whilst some reports are available at this time including the Fish

assemblages and spawning in the northern Murray Darling Basin, of which we noted the

concluding statement that there is little evidence that spawning and recruitment of fish is

related to river hydrology in the Namoi. Water users have long supported the management of

invasive pest species that contribute significantly to the decline of river health.

The department has two reports publicly available, the Environmental flow response and socio

economic monitoring 2009 progress report and WSP Upper and Lower Namoi regulated rivers

progress report 2004‐2009. The Integrated Monitoring and Environmental Flows scientific

program to assess ecological benefits has not resulted in publicly available information that we

have been able to access. As per the above reports there has not been provision made to

directly evaluate the minimum daily end‐of‐system flows required under clause 15, Namoi

Water seeks review of this provision as to its environmental benefit for improved ecosystem

function.


Key Issues

Water Year:

The change to move the water year to a financial year end was agreed to by the River

Management committee on the basis that 150% be available for use in any one year. This was

subsequently changed to 125% being available in any one year and 300% over 3 years without

agreement by the committee. The Namoi Irrigation area is predominantly focused on summer

cropping program. The bulk of irrigation ends in April, with the current water year irrigators

will pump unused allocation into storage, it causes regulated water to be used rather than held

in the most efficient storage at headwater dam, it results in reduction of low flow periods and

results in unnecessary losses. The 1 October to 30 September water year allows water users to

more efficiently manage their water allocations as at the 30th September they know their

allocation and planting areas can be better planned.

Accounting Rules :

Account limit rules for general security access licences have account limits set that were not

agreed to by the River Management committee, these rules can and have been an inhibitor to

trade. It was agreed that collectively account limits should not total more than 200%, however

the WSP rule was written in the context of the individual account limits could not be more than

200% or in the account of High Security water 100%. This subtle difference has impacted on

trade, whereas the policy at the time of the WSP and through NWI principles is to promote

trade so that water is available for transfer to the highest value use.

Supplementary Access: Trigger points used for accessing supplementary events are being

restricted by the interpretation of using volumetric and time for calculating access to the event

where it should just be based on the volumetric calculation. Namoi Water also requests that

supplementary licences be granted in perpetuity.


Supplementary Access Trigger Heights :

The trigger heights for supplementary access need to be reviewed, in particular the relevance

of the Narrabri gauge to the lower section of the river and tributary contributions from the

below this point. An example of the relevance of trigger points is the Lower Pian previously

had a trigger of 50 meg at Dundee or 20 meg at Waminda, if there were flows that weren’t

regulated orders shared access was granted for the lower end of the system. Burren creek runs

in as a tributary feeder as such can cause supplementary flow which is not able to be accessed

as the trigger at Narrabri is not relevant.

90:10 Rule :

This rule is in place to limit supplementary access to 10% of a declared flow in the period 1st July

till 31st October (4 months). The purpose of this clause, which was included in the Minister’s

plan as an alteration to the community based draft plan, has never been clarified to those

impacted by the plan. We believe the public interest will be well served in repealing subsection

(11) (a) and extending subsection (11) (b) to all twelve calendar months. The interests of

downstream users and the environment are well protected by the other clauses in section 49 of

the water sharing plan.

Section 49 subsection (11) (a) clearly has a negative economic impacts in the Namoi. Other

clauses in section 49 protect downstream users and Namoi supports these measures, we seek

review of the operation and impacts of subsection (11) (a) the so called 90 / 10 rule. We are

currently running a scenario through the Namoi Socio‐Economic Model to provide full detail on

the broader impacts of this rule on the valley. We seek full IQQM analysis of the scenario of

50/50 during the past 10 years to show the impact of potential supplementary access during

this time on environmental flow.


End of System Flow :

The insertion of the end of system flow was at the request of the Nature conservation council

as a state wide requirement to meet 95 percentile flows in all rivers. The Namoi plan comments

by stating that this flow is too unusual to model, yet this flow now occurs annually in the

Namoi. The flow has no stated environmental outcome and does not represent good natural

resource management.

There has as yet to be examination of low flow requirements in the Namoi nor have key

indicators been benchmarked. This request was made by Namoi Water at the beginning of the

Water Sharing Plan implementation to assess the above and other planned environmental

water flow benefits for the system and to understand what could be considered best practice

for natural resource management in the Namoi River system. We request review of the end of

system flow requirement and evidence of linkages to the improved environmental outcomes

that result from this plan rule.

Flood Plain Harvesting :

Floodplain Harvesting is being addressed through separate policy process and licencing and

validation is being undertaken now across the northern valleys. Relevant to the WSP the issue

of CAP is crucial to the licensing of floodplain access licence being conducted in a fair and

reasonable manner that reflects the intent of the Water Sharing Plan for the Upper Namoi and

Lower Namoi Regulated River Water Sources 2004.

As per previous meetings with NSW Office of Water there is agreement that the Namoi

regulated plan makes no specific recognition of the floodplain activity and we request as a

matter of review of the water sharing plan that schedule F be updated to include validated

floodplain licensing in the Namoi in addition to the current CAP.


Gunidgera Pian System :

The previous plan stated that during the life of the plan, extraction components should be

amended in accordance with the mandatory conditions on the access licences. It further stated

that the Minister should take into account the water distribution arrangements existing prior to

the commencement of the Plan and any other relevant matters. This matter is still unresolved

and in the review of this plan this issue must be addressed in full consultation with water users

impacted. Capacity constraints are an ongoing issue in this system.

North West Unregulated Flow Plan :

The policy to manage extractions from unregulated flows in the Darling Basin for the purpose of

maintaining supply to Broken Hill was implemented in the previous decade. The impact of this

was the restriction or prohibition of extractions from unregulated flow anywhere in the basin

specifically for the water supply for Broken Hill. Extractions were managed until there was

sufficient water in storage to guarantee supply for a period of 21 months. The impact of this

was the banning of extractions on several occasions until the storages recovered to the extent

that Broken Hill’s supply was considered secure. Restrictions were imposed and the policy

managed access in the Namoi Valley to unregulated flows. The Namoi is still subject to the

provisions of the North West Flow Plan via the regulated Water Sharing Plan. We seek review

of these rules to coincide with alternative solutions to the long term supply of reliable water

resource for the community of Broken Hill.


Conclusion:

The review of the Namoi Regulated Water Sharing Plan at this time is essential, water users

have waited 10 years to have addressed the many varied and clearly inefficient functions of the

plan as a result of the re‐wording and changes made post community approved plan. The

process of review must have the same functionality as the previous process which includes

open and transparent discussions with all stakeholders, we seek representation on the

Interagency Regional Panels for water users and environmental representatives as a matter of

priority and due process.

As we move forward to the 2019 implementation date of the Murray Darling Basin Plan we

have clearly supported how NSW and the subsequent departments responsible for water have

progressed water reform in partnership with communities and water users. It would be

disappointing after the dismal failure of the federal process and recent state unregulated water

sharing plan process to see this repeated. There is adjustment required to the engagement

and final approval process that is planned for these water sharing plans.

Namoi Water looks forward to working with the NSW Government to review the water sharing

plans and improve the water resource management to ensure a sustainable future for our

communities.

The value of water to

Namoi Catchment

Namoi Councils

31 May 2012

The value of water to Namoi Catchment

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network

of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity.

Please see www.deloitte.com/au/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and

its member firms.

© 2011 Deloitte Access Economics Pty Ltd

Contents Glossary ...........................................................................................................................................i

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................i

1 Forecast drier future........................................................................................................... 1

2 Scenarios............................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Rainfall only............................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Climate change .................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Policy only ............................................................................................................................ 12

2.4 Comparison of scenarios...................................................................................................... 15

2.5 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................... 16

Limitation of our work..................................................................................................................... 18

Charts Chart 1.1 : Impacts on agricultural output.................................................................................... 3

Chart 1.2 : Flow on impacts to other industries............................................................................ 4

Chart 2.1 : Impact on agricultural production – rainfall only scenario ......................................... 9

Chart 2.2 : Impact on agricultural production – climate change scenario.................................. 11

Chart 2.3 : Impact on agricultural production – policy scenario................................................. 13

Chart 2.4 : Impact on value of agriculture from policy scenario – Wee Waa ............................. 15

Chart 2.5 : Impact on value of agriculture from policy scenario – Moonbi ................................ 15

Chart 2.6 : Real GRP impacts, compared to BAU ........................................................................ 16

Tables Table 1.1 : Forecast drier future water assumptions.................................................................... 1

Table 1.2 : Scenario results ........................................................................................................... 2

Table 1.3 : Impact on the value of output at the town level – forecast drier future.................... 7

Table 2.1 : Water assumptions of rainfall only scenario............................................................... 8

Table 2.2 : Results from rainfall only scenario .............................................................................. 9

Table 2.3 : Impact on agricultural production at the town level – rainfall only scenario ........... 10

Table 2.4 : Water assumptions of climate change scenario ....................................................... 10

Table 2.5 : Results from climate change scenario....................................................................... 11

Deloitte Access Economics Commercial-in-confidence

Table 2.6 : Impact on agricultural production at the town level – climate change scenario...... 12

Table 2.7 : Water assumptions of policy only scenario............................................................... 12

Table 2.8 : Results from policy only scenario.............................................................................. 13

Table 2.9 : Impact on agricultural production at the town level – policy scenario..................... 14

Table 2.10 : Water assumptions of sensitivity one ..................................................................... 16

Table 2.11 : Water assumptions of sensitivity two ..................................................................... 16

Table 2.12 : Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................... 17



Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its

network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity.

Please see www.deloitte.com/au/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

and its member firms.


Glossary Business as usual (BAU) – a scenario of ‘normal’ development, where the variable of

interest (in this case water) does not change from some pre-determined concept of normal

(such as no deviation from the present, or from long term averages). It is against this

scenario that other modelled scenarios are compared, with the difference in outcomes

referred to as an ‘impact’,

Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) – a modelling framework built on an established

body of economic theory in which accounting identities used by statistical agencies

(including the Australian Bureau of Statistics) are explicitly met, and where the actions of

any agent in the economy (for example, changes to government taxation policy) has either

direct or indirect flow on impacts to all other agents.

DAE-RGEM – Deloitte Access Economic regional CGE model.

Employment – The number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs in a region or sector.

GDP/GSP/GRP -– Gross Domestic Product, Gross State Product or Gross Regional Product

respectively - a commonly used measure of economic activity. One method for constructing

this measure is to take the sum of all value-add that occurs within the region of interest.

Government expenditure – in the same way that households consume goods and services,

the government in each region also consumes goods and services for the purpose of

supplying public goods through government expenditure. Within DAE-RGEM the

government sector represents a combination of all the levels of government from local

council to federal government.

Household/representative household – Most CGE models (including DAE-RGEM) use a

single household agent/unit in the model to represent the total activity of all households in

a region – a so-called representative household. In each year the representative household

earns income which is allocated in part to consumption of goods and services (for example,

accommodation services and food products), and in part to savings which are then used for

investment in capital goods.

Investment – Investment in the model refers to the creation of new physical capital, either

to replace old depreciated capital (for example, an old computer replaced by a new

computer) or to increase the total capital stock (for example, to increase the number of

computers in a business).

Labour supply – The count of the employed and the unemployed (but available for work)

population.

Real Wages – the wages received by employees adjusted for inflation.

Deloitte Access Economics Commercial-in-confidence

Terms of Trade – a commonly used ratio measuring the difference between the price of a

region’s exports and the price of a region’s imports.

Value Added – the difference between the value of product sold in an industry and the

value of the intermediate inputs (that is, goods and services used for production) in an

industry. For example, if a factory purchases $10 of ingredients and produces $15 worth of

bread, the value added in providing the product is $5. Value added is distributed across

payments to the factors of production including labour, capital and land.

i

Commercial-in-Confidence Deloitte Access Economics

Executive Summary This report presents the results of Deloitte Access Economics’ modelling of the economic

impacts of a drier future on the Namoi economy. The impacts of a drier future have been

modelled using three integrated models: (1) a water and landuse model of the Namoi

Catchment; (2) a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model with the Namoi Catchment

as a discrete region in the global economy and 3) a community level disaggregation

resilience model.

The water and landuse model determines the agricultural landuse and eventual agricultural

output of the Namoi Catchment under different water availability scenarios. Taking this

agricultural production data as an input, the CGE model estimates the effects of each water

availability scenario on the whole economy of the catchment, including the main economic

indicators of gross regional product (GRP), employment and wages. The community model

then disaggregates the catchment level results to the individual communities based on

their land and water use and industry profiles.

The following discussion presents the high level modelling results from several drier future

scenarios for the Namoi Catchment.

The value of water assessment reflects the combined outputs of the three models, when

used to model the effects of declining water availability in the Namoi Catchment. Key

results of this process are as follows:

• The best estimate water availability scenario is based on the proposed Murray Darling

Basin Plan, where rainfall is 0.4% lower by 2030 and there is 13.1% less water available

for irrigated agriculture (based on changes in allocations and entitlements). This

scenario leads to an average annual decline in agricultural production of $23.6 million

(in 2010 prices) by 2030, or 2% of the total value of agricultural production in the

Namoi Catchment.

• The losses are primarily experienced in irrigated agriculture (especially cotton) rather

than dryland agriculture. In the scenario, irrigated agriculture is affected by both

climate change (and its resulting effects on reduced allocations) and reduced

entitlements whereas dryland agriculture only experiences the impacts of reduced

rainfall from climate change.

• Overall, gross regional product in the catchment falls by $38 million, representing a fall

of 0.4%, and the economy supports almost 70 less jobs on a full time equivalent (FTE)

basis.

• For every additional dollar of agricultural production– of which approximately 60 cents

is value-added – Namoi’s GRP overall grows by $1.36. This is a value-added multiplier of

approximately 2.3. This means that, of the total value added to the economy of water

use in agriculture, 40% of it is realised in agriculture. The flow on effects of reduced

water availability is experienced across the wider economy, most notably in food

processing and construction.

• Of the two likely causes of reduced water in the future – climate change and the Basin

Plan – Namoi’s economy is more vulnerable to those relating to the Basin Plan, at least

out until 2030. Of course, any climate change is likely to continue to develop beyond

ii


2030, in a way that is not modelled here. Similarly, the values associated with

environmental improvements from the Basin Plan are not modelled here.

• A scenario where climate change acts alone, without a policy based reduction in

entitlements, the losses are more modest. In this scenario, (with a 0.4% reduction in

rainfall and a 5% reduction in water allocations by 2030) agricultural production falls by

$5.2 million or 0.7%, while GRP falls by $12 million, or 0.1%. These losses are

experienced in both dryland and irrigated agriculture.

• A scenario where the only change is a reduction in irrigation entitlements of 8.5%, as a

consequence of the Basin Plan, leads to an $8.2 million or 1.1% loss in the value of

agricultural production and a loss in GRP of 22.1 million (0.2%). In this scenario, all

losses are experienced in irrigated agriculture. In fact, there is a slight gain to dryland

agricultural values, as more land is converted from irrigation to dryland.

• Far more economically destructive to the catchment than forecast climate change or

the Basin Plan would be a longer term continuation of the climatic conditions

experienced during the recent drought.

• The value of water – be it a millimetre of rainfall or a ML of irrigation water – varies

depending on how much water is already being used. At the margin (defined by long

term average conditions of 350 GL of water used and average catchment wide rainfall

of 578 mm), the following marginal values of water are observed:

• For each mm of rainfall lost to dryland agriculture, the size of the regional

economy declines by $519,000. (This is the value of rainfall to dryland

agriculture.) The link between rainfall and runoff, and hence allocations and

irrigated water use, ensures rainfall is even more valuable than this.

• For each ML of irrigation water lost the size of Namoi’s economy declines by

approximately $750.

• The value of water, and hence the impacts of less water, are not experienced uniformly

throughout the catchment. At a community level, the towns expected to be

proportionally hardest hit are either those that are most heavily dependent upon

irrigated agriculture (Wee Waa and Walgett), and/or lack the characteristics that allow

a community to be resilient to negative external change (Wee Waa, Walgett, Baradine

and Quirindi).

• Scenarios to adapt to this drier future have not been modelled here. Rather, the

modelling capacity to explore a wide range of adaptation responses has been provided

to Namoi Councils to assist in planning responses.

Deloitte Access Economics


1


1 Forecast drier future Over the coming decades the Namoi Catchment’s economy is expected to be impacted by

both the effects of climate change and a reduction in irrigation entitlements held in the

region as a result of the Murray Darling Basin Plan. This section outlines the findings of

modelling on the economic impact on the region of the proposed Murray Darling Basin Plan

water buyback scenario.

Base case, or business as usual (BAU)

To model the impacts of a drier future, it is first necessary to develop a comparison ‘no

change’ world, against which the drier future scenario can be compared. This so called

‘Base Case’ scenario, models the future of the region without any changes to water

availability. In effect, this is a ‘business as usual’ water availability future for the Namoi

Catchment, where the climate does not change from long term averages and where there is

no reduction in entitlements out of the region. In other words, the volume of irrigated

water use does not decline. The economic outcomes of the water availability scenario are

then compared to the Base Case, with the differences called the ‘impact’ of less water.

Key assumptions of the historical baseline climate scenario for the Namoi Catchment are

summarised below:

• Average annual historical rainfall for the Namoi Catchment is 578 mm.

• The average variability in rainfall between years (coefficient of variation) is 27%.

• Average annual general security water allocations of 69% of total volume entitlement.

Forecast drier future scenario assumptions

The following assumptions were made in estimating the key water availability parameters

for the scenario:

Table 1.1: Forecast drier future water assumptions

Long term average 2019 2030Average annual rainfall mm 578 -0.2% -0.4%Average water extraction allocation volume 69% -2.5% -5.0%Total water extraction entitlements ML 497,000 -8.5% -8.5%Overall impacts on extractive water availability -10.8% -13.1%

Projections

Results

The impacts of reduced water from climate change and the purchase of an additional 2,750

GL/year for the environment on the key variables of the Namoi Catchment economy are

provided in Table 1.2.

By 2030, the value of agricultural production is modelled to decline by 2%, representing lost

agricultural production value of $23.6 million.


2


After including the flow-on effects to the rest of Namoi’s economy, the reduction in water

availability resulting from the proposed Murray Darling Basin Plan causes a 0.4% decline in

real GRP, or a loss of $38.0 million from the regional economy. This reduction in production

corresponds to a decline in employment of approximately 60 full time employees in the

region, under normal labour market conditions.

The overall economic impacts of a drier future, especially the employment impacts, are

highly sensitive to assumptions around key labour market assumptions, particularly the

ability and willingness of workers of the Namoi Catchment to exit the labour force when

opportunities decline relative to elsewhere. The results identified above reflect a Namoi

labour market responding in a manner that has been calibrated on trends observed during

the recent drought. Impacts reported here will be magnified should the population

become more mobile than it was during the drought, and more people leave the region in

pursuit of relatively better economic opportunities elsewhere.

Table 1.2: Scenario results

Impact – compared to BAU 2020 2030

Value of agricultural production ($A,2010 prices) -$19.5 million -$23.6 million

Real GRP - % Change -0.4 -0.4

Employment - % Change -0.1 -0.1

Household cons - % Change -0.3 -0.3

Investment - % Change -0.4 -0.2

Govt. Exp - % Change -0.3 -0.3

Exports - % Change -1.0 -1.2

Imports - % Change -0.3 -0.3

Terms of Trade - % Change 0.2 0.3

Real wages - % Change -0.1 -0.1

Real GRP ($A, 2010 prices) -$26.0 million -$38.0 million

Real HH cons ($A, 2010 prices) -$12.1 million -$19.0 million

Employment (FTE) -49 -59

The higher relative fall in water allocation and entitlement volumes (than rainfall) sees

irrigated agriculture experiencing proportionately more of the impacts than dryland

agriculture. This is because, in the scenario, irrigated agriculture experiences the effects of

climate change (and its resulting effects on reduced allocations) and from reduced

entitlements, whereas dryland agriculture only experiences the impacts of reduced rainfall

from climate change. The relative effect of rainfall, climate change and policy on dryland

and irrigated agriculture is explored more in the next section.

The combination of reduced yields and land use substitutions sees the value of production

from cotton decline at an average annual rate of 8.7% by 2030 (compared to business as

usual). Falls in the value of production are also seen in other irrigation dependent

commodities such as vegetables (down 1.4%) and other fruits (down 2.0%).


3


Chart 1.1: Impacts on agricultural output

-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00

Other Cereals

Cotton

Other Broadacre

Livestock Dairy

Other Livestock

Vegetables

Grapes

Other Fruits

Hay Production

Other Agriculture

2020 2030

% change relative to BAU

The land that otherwise would have been used for irrigated agriculture – primarily cotton –

is transitioned into dryland crops such as other broadacre and other cereals.1 Even though

there is more land being used for dryland agriculture, there are small falls in the overall

value of dryland agriculture, because of the effect of lower yields from reduced rainfall. In

other words, even though the area of dryland agriculture goes up, the yield from that larger

area is lower.

Nevertheless, the higher relative fall in water allocation and entitlement volumes sees

irrigated agriculture experiencing proportionately far more of the impacts than dry land

agriculture. This is particularly true in the first five years, as irrigated agriculture suffers

most initially from the fall in water entitlements form the Basin Plan.

Flowing on from the direct shock to agriculture will be a decline in the value of output from

selected industries that source inputs directly from the local agricultural industry (dairy

products down 0.1% and processed food down 0.2%).

Construction provides a good representation of the general health of the region’s economy

as an increase in investment in physical assets reflects confidence in the local economy. By

2020, construction in the Namoi Catchment is expected to decline by 0.5%; however, as the

economy adjusts to the shock, and excess capital and labour are redeployed, the decline in

the value of construction output is expected to moderate to 0.3%.

Declines in other industries are primarily due to reduced expenditure in the region (from

lower employment and reduced farm incomes). This will be most important to service-

based industries such as finance and insurance, retail trade, recreation and government

services.

1 Refer to previous milestone reports for descriptions of each agricultural sector.


4


The rise in manufacturing is likely due to the sector benefitting from the small fall in wages

in the region, as remaining businesses have a labour price advantage over competitors that

they otherwise do not have.

Chart 1.2: Flow on impacts to other industries

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

Forestry

Fishing

Meat products

Vegetable oils and fats

Dairy products

Food products nec

Beverages and tob. products

Light Manufacturing

Manufacturing

Electricity

Construction

Trade

Transport

Communications

Finance and Insurance

Other Business Services

Recreation & Other Services

Govt Services

2020 2030


Community level impacts

Table 1.3 provides a summary of the community level impacts of the forecast drier future

scenario. These include:

• the absolute $ impact to agriculture and the rest of the economy;

• the impact to agriculture (rest of economy) in terms of the size of each town’s

agriculture industry (economy);

• the impact to agriculture (rest of economy) in terms of the size of each town’s

agriculture industry (economy) adjusted for the relative vulnerability of each town; and

• the size of the agriculture industry in comparison to the rest of the economy.


5


Impacts on agriculture

Across the catchment, Wee Waa, Walgett and Boggabri are expected to experience the

largest impacts to agriculture from the drier future scenario. This is because of two main

reasons:

• the agriculture industry dominates the local economy of these communities; plus

• they are expected to experience the largest decline in the value of agricultural

production (in terms of the size of their agriculture industry), because of the nature of

the irrigated production that occurs there.

For example, under this scenario the value of agricultural production in Wee Waa is

expected to decline by 5.8% (which is the strongest impact on any community in the Namoi

Catchment). This is particularly important given Wee Waa’s agricultural industry comprises

90% of the town’s economy.

Similarly, Boggabri’s agriculture industry represents over 20% of the region’s economy and

the drier future scenario results in a 1% decline in the value of agricultural output in the

community.

Walgett’s agriculture industry accounts for 40% of the community’s economy.

Consequently, the 0.3% decline in the value of agriculture will still result in noticeable

impact on the community’s economy.

There are, however, two notable exceptions to this general trend – Narrabri and Curlewis.

The impact of a 3.8% decline in the value of agriculture in Narrabri will be less significant

than, for example Wee Waa, as agriculture only (directly) accounts for 5.4% of Narrabri’s

economy.

While the agriculture industry accounts for almost 40% of Curlewis’ local economy, the

dominance of dryland agriculture ensures this community’s agriculture industry will fare

relatively well in the forecast drier future scenario.

Impacts on the rest of the economy

The flow-on impacts to the wider economy of reduced water availability are determined by

each town’s industry structure. While a town in the region may not be heavily dependent

on agriculture, it may be reliant on downstream agribusiness – such as food processing,

dairy processing and vegetable oils and fats – or expenditure from farmers in the

catchment more broadly.

Towns in close proximity to Tamworth (Nemingha, Kootingal, Kingswood, Moonbi, Attunga

and Bendemeer) experience declining economic activity despite minimal overall impacts on

their agricultural industries. This is primarily due to their dependence on service-based

industries that rely on total expenditure in the region such as business, recreation and

government services.

This is particularly evident for Tamworth itself. As the business and retail centre of the

Namoi Catchment, Tamworth is expected to experience a relatively larger share of the

decline in downstream industries – such as retail trade, recreation services and government

services – despite the minimal direct impact on the community’s agriculture industry.


6


While the size of Narrabri’s agriculture industry is relatively small in comparison to some

communities in the catchment, the local economy is heavily dependent on agribusinesses

such as agriculture related R&D (private and government) enterprises and business services

that directly support agriculture (agronomists, accountants, farm management, livestock

officers, etc). This dependence on farm expenditure will exacerbate the 3.8% decline in the

value of agriculture beyond this one industry.

Vulnerability adjusted impacts

Vulnerability adjusted impacts present the expected community level impacts accounting

for each town’s resilience characteristics such as level of education, mining prospects,

general labour market opportunities, income levels, Indigenous status and distance to large

urban centres (see Appendix A for more details).

Communities with relatively low levels of resilience are expected to experience a larger

share of the impact than the mechanical disaggregation would suggest (as they are unable

to adapt and respond to the shock from less water). Tamworth is the most resilient

community in the catchment while Walgett and Barraba are the least resilient.

The resilient characteristics of Tamworth’s population and economy ensure the community

will experience a smaller impact than expected. In fact, after adjusting for the degree of

vulnerability, Tamworth shifts from being one of the communities most affected by

reduced water availability to a community that experiences a medium impact from reduced

water availability. In contrast, Quirindi is expected to see local economic activity decline by

more than what its industry profile would suggest.


7


Table 1.3: Impact on the value of output at the town level – forecast drier future

Impact to ($,000):

Impact as a share of industry/

economy (%)

Impact as a share of industry/ economy, adjusted for relative

vulnerability (%)

Agriculture’s share of

economy (a)

Ag Economy Ag Economy Ag Economy

Attunga (L) -1 -637 -0.01 -0.21 -0.01 -0.20 3.4% Baradine (L) 22 -816 0.27 -0.27 0.27 -0.32 2.8% Barraba 267 -379 0.59 -0.19 0.61 -0.24 22.6% Bendemeer (L) -4 -398 -0.06 -0.19 -0.10 -0.20 3.6% Boggabri (L) -330 -201 -1.06 -0.13 -1.18 -0.17 20.8% Curlewis (L) -14 -356 -0.02 -0.18 -0.02 -0.20 37.5% Gunnedah -600 -3,163 -1.07 -0.20 -0.98 -0.21 3.6% Kingswood (L) 7 -1,542 0.05 -0.22 -0.01 -0.21 2.0% Kootingal 1 -1,204 0.02 -0.22 0.01 -0.21 0.7% Manilla -1 -762 0.00 -0.21 0.00 -0.24 10.8% Moonbi (L) -3 -849 -0.04 -0.23 -0.05 -0.21 2.1% Narrabri -2,379 -2,671 -3.83 -0.23 -3.52 -0.24 5.4% Nemingha (L) 0 -859 2.13 -0.22 2.24 -0.21 0.0% Nundle (L) -1 -331 0.00 -0.22 0.00 -0.24 14.3% Quirindi 8 -1,220 0.01 -0.21 0.01 -0.25 14.3% Tamworth -4 -15,807 -0.03 -0.23 -0.03 -0.22 0.2% Walgett -232 -511 -0.32 -0.28 -0.36 -0.35 39.6% Wee Waa -12,099 -587 -5.83 -0.25 -5.92 -0.30 90.0% Werris Creek 2 -552 0.01 -0.19 0.01 -0.18 5.3%

Note: Ag: agriculture; (a) Agriculture industry’s share of total economic output in each community (based on

mechanical disaggregation); coloured cells represent 5 largest impacts in each column.


8


2 Scenarios This section decomposes the forecast drier future scenario into its components, namely:

• rainfall;

• climate change; and

• government policy (proposed Murray Darling Basin Plan).

A comparison of the scenarios is then provided to highlight the relative effect of each

scenario on the Namoi Catchment’s economy. The impact of the proposed Murray Darling

Basin Plan is larger than the other scenarios modelled because it is this scenario that, by far,

represents the biggest cut in water availability to the catchment (8.5% cut in water

available for irrigation). This is despite an increase in production of dryland agriculture.

The next most costly scenario is the water available to the Namoi Catchment under climate

change conditions. This consists of both a reduction in rainfall and a reduction in allocation

rates (with an overall reduction in water available for irrigation of 2.5% by 2019 and 5.0%

by 2030).

Finally, the rainfall only scenario is used to illustrate the decline in the value of agriculture

expected in the region following a 0.2% reduction in average rainfall. This scenario will

predominantly impact dryland agricultural production.

2.1 Rainfall only


for the rainfall only scenario:

Table 2.4: Water assumptions of rainfall only scenario

Long term average 2019 2030Average annual rainfall mm 578 -0.2% -0.4%Average water extraction allocation volume 69% 0.0% 0.0%Total water extraction entitlements ML 497,000 0.0% 0.0%Overall impacts on extractive water availability 0.0% 0.0%

Projections

The impacts of reduced water from rainfall are provided in Table 2.5.

By 2030 the value of agricultural production is modelled to decline by less than 0.03%

which represents a loss in value of $0.9 million.


9


Table 2.5: Results from rainfall only scenario


Value of irrigated agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) -$37,000 -$68,000

Value of dryland agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) -$341,000 -$812,000

Value of total agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) -$378,000 -$880,000


The reduction in rainfall will have the greatest impact on dryland agricultural production –

particularly hay, other cereals, other broadacre and other livestock (see Chart 2.3).

However water intensive agricultural industries such as cotton and other fruits will also

experience a decline in the value of production as a result of less water.

Chart 2.3: Impact on agricultural production – rainfall only scenario

-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05

Other Cereals

Cotton

Other Broadacre

Livestock Dairy

Other Livestock

Vegetables

Grapes

Other Fruits

Hay Production

Other Agriculture

2020 2030


At the community level the communities most affected by reduced rainfall are those with

sizeable dryland agricultural production: Walgett, Curlewis, Barraba, Werris Creek and

Quirindi.

Wee Waa is expected to experience the largest absolute share of the impact at the

catchment level (approximately $125,000), but this represents less than 0.06% of the value

of agriculture in the community. This decline is primarily driven by Wee Waa’s other

cereals, other livestock and other broadacre sectors. However, the reduced rainfall will

also reduce the value of the region’s cotton production.

Accounting for almost 30% of the catchment’s decline in the value of broadacre production

and 20% of the decline in the value of production in other cereals it is unsurprising that

Walgett is expected to experience the largest impact in terms of the share of total value of

agriculture.


10


The $100,000 decline in agricultural production in Quirindi and $110,000 decline in Curlewis

are due to the communities’ other cereals and other livestock sectors. While this is a small

decline, the impact is felt relatively harder in these two communities due to the relatively

small size of their agriculture industry (than, for example, Wee Waa or Boggabri).

The declining value of Werris Creek’s other cereals production accounts for the relatively

stronger impact of reduced rainfall on this town (0.14% decline in the value of agricultural

production).

Table 2.6: Impact on agricultural production at the town level – rainfall only scenario

Impacts Total ($,000) Share of

Agriculture Total (%) Attunga (L) -10 -0.10 Baradine (L) -7 -0.08 Barraba -64 -0.14 Bendemeer (L) -4 -0.05 Boggabri (L) -35 -0.11 Curlewis (L) -112 -0.15 Gunnedah -65 -0.12 Kingswood (L) -15 -0.11 Kootingal -1 -0.03 Manilla -29 -0.07 Moonbi (L) -5 -0.06 Narrabri -37 -0.06 Nemingha (L) 1 6.39 Nundle (L) -15 -0.07 Quirindi -102 -0.12 Tamworth -1 -0.01 Walgett -106 -0.15 Wee Waa -126 -0.06 Werris Creek -22 -0.14

2.2 Climate change


for the climate change scenario:

Table 2.7: Water assumptions of climate change scenario

Long term average 2019 2030Average annual rainfall mm 578 -0.2% -0.4%Average water extraction allocation volume 69% -2.5% -5.0%Total water extraction entitlements ML 497,000Overall impacts on extractive water availability -2.5% -5.0%

Projections


11


The impacts of reduced water from climate change are provided in Table 2.8.

By 2030 the value of agricultural production is modelled to decline by approximately 0.7%

which represents a loss in value of $5.2 million.

After including the flow-on effects to the rest of the Namoi Catchment’s economy, the

reduction in water from climate change (rainfall and allocation volumes) results in a 0.1%

decline in real GRP, or a loss of $12.0 million from the regional economy.

Table 2.8: Results from climate change scenario


Value of irrigated agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) -$2.4 million -$4.4 million

Value of dryland agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) -$0.3 million -$0.7 million

Value of total agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) -$2.6 million -$5.2 million


While the rainfall scenario primarily affected dryland cropping and grazing, the climate

change scenario also affects the amount of water available for irrigation through the

reduction in allocation volume. This can be seen in Chart 2.4. Cotton, as the region’s

biggest water user, experiences the largest decline in the value of production but there is

also a decline in production values across some dryland sectors such as other cereals and

other livestock.

Chart 2.4: Impact on agricultural production – climate change scenario

-3.00 -2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50

Other Cereals

Cotton

Other Broadacre

Livestock Dairy

Other Livestock

Vegetables

Grapes

Other Fruits

Hay Production

Other Agriculture

2020 2030


At the community level, communities with a large proportion of cotton production are the

hardest hit – particularly Wee Waa, Narrabri, Walgett, Gunnedah and Boggabri. Wee Waa

alone accounts for almost 80% of the catchment’s decline in the value of cotton production

under the climate change scenario.


12


Walgett, Gunnedah and Boggabri also experience declines in the value of production from

other cereals – these three communities represent over one third of the catchment-wide

decline in other cereals.

Table 2.9: Impact on agricultural production at the town level – climate change scenario


Agriculture Total (%) Attunga (L) -9 -0.09 Baradine (L) -1 -0.01 Barraba 30 0.07 Bendemeer (L) -3 -0.03 Boggabri (L) -98 -0.31 Curlewis (L) -77 -0.10 Gunnedah -208 -0.37 Kingswood (L) -7 -0.05 Kootingal -1 -0.03 Manilla -23 -0.06 Moonbi (L) -4 -0.05 Narrabri -644 -1.04 Nemingha (L) 0 1.64 Nundle (L) -12 -0.05 Quirindi -73 -0.09 Tamworth -4 -0.04 Walgett -140 -0.19 Wee Waa -3,699 -1.78 Werris Creek -14 -0.09

2.3 Policy only


for the policy only scenario:

Table 2.10: Water assumptions of policy only scenario

Long term average 2019 2030Average annual rainfall mm 578 0.0% 0.0%Average water extraction allocation volume 69% 0.0% 0.0%Total water extraction entitlements ML 497,000 -8.5% -8.5%Overall impacts on extractive water availability -8.5% -8.5%

Projections

The policy only scenario represents an 8.5% cut in entitlements in the Namoi Catchment as

a result of the proposed Murray Darling Basin Plan. This scenario shifts production out of

irrigated agriculture and into dryland production as the cost of water increases. However,

the increase in the value of dryland production is insufficient to cover the loss from

irrigated agriculture. As Table 2.11 summarises, the value of agricultural production in the

catchment is expected to decline by $8.2 million by 2030 under this scenario.


13


The results also illustrate the responsiveness of the agricultural industry versus the wider

economy to a shock. The largest impact to the agricultural sector is felt soon after the

policy comes into effect (2020), but by 2030 the sector has begun to adjust and the size of

the impact moderates. On the other hand, the wider economy takes time to adjust –

particularly the capital stock – and this is reflected in the larger impact on real GRP in 2030

than 2020.

Table 2.11: Results from policy only scenario



Value of dryland agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) $0.2 million $0.2 million



The cut to entitlements affects irrigation-intensive industries such as cotton, vegetables and

fruits. The shift towards dryland cropping is reflected in the increase in other broadacre,

other cereals and hay production.

Chart 2.5: Impact on agricultural production – policy scenario

-6.00 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00

Other Cereals

Cotton

Other Broadacre

Livestock Dairy

Other Livestock

Vegetables

Grapes

Other Fruits

Hay Production

Other Agriculture

2020 2030


At the community level, irrigation dependent communities such as Wee Waa, Narrabri,

Gunnedah and Boggabri will experience the largest declines in the value of agricultural

production. Within the agricultural industry in these communities, dryland crops and

grazing will increase in production value but not enough to mitigate the decline in irrigated

agriculture.

The policy scenario is expected to result in a 3.5% decline in agricultural production in

Werris Creek and a 2.5% decline in Narrabri.


14


Taking advantage of increases in available land and water, dryland dominant communities

such as Barraba, Quirindi and Curlewis will see the value of production improve under the

policy scenario.

While the value of agricultural production in Walgett is expected to decline by 0.1% this

masks the change in landuses within the community – the value of cotton production will

decline by $180,000 but $100,000 of this is offset by increases in the value of other cereals,

other broadacre, hay and other livestock.

Table 2.12: Impact on agricultural production at the town level – policy scenario


Agriculture Total (%) Attunga (L) 5 0.0 Baradine (L) 19 0.2 Barraba 218 0.5 Bendemeer (L) 2 0.0 Boggabri (L) -218 -0.7 Curlewis (L) 38 0.1 Gunnedah -355 -0.6 Kingswood (L) 18 0.1 Kootingal 1 0.0 Manilla 14 0.0 Moonbi (L) 2 0.0 Narrabri -1,541 -2.5 Nemingha (L) 0 -0.7 Nundle (L) 7 0.0 Quirindi 57 0.1 Tamworth -2 0.0 Walgett -89 -0.1 Wee Waa -7,189 -3.5 Werris Creek 10 0.1

To illustrate the diversity of the effect of the policy scenario across communities in the

Namoi Catchment Chart 2.6 and Chart 2.7 provide the impact on the value of agriculture in

Wee Waa and Moonbi. As the table above shows, Wee Waa will experience a decline in the

value of agriculture while Moonbi will experience a slight increase in the value of

agriculture.

Wee Waa’s decline of over $7 million (or 3.5% of the total value of agricultural production)

is almost entirely driven by a shock to the irrigation intensive cotton sector. This decline

represents almost three-quarters of the decline in cotton at the whole of catchment level.

While Moonbi’s vegetable sector will decline under the policy scenario, this will be more

than offset by rising production values in other livestock, other broadacre and hay.


15


Chart 2.6: Impact on value of agriculture from policy

scenario – Wee Waa

-$8,000 -$6,000 -$4,000 -$2,000 $0

Other Cereals

Cotton

Other Broad Acre

Hay Production

Livestock Dairy

Other Livestock

Vegetables

Grapes

Other Fruits

Other Agriculture

($,000)

Chart 2.7: Impact on value of agriculture from policy

scenario – Moonbi

-$6 -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4

Other Cereals

Cotton

Other Broad Acre

Hay Production

Livestock Dairy

Other Livestock

Vegetables

Grapes

Other Fruits

Other Agriculture

($,000)

2.4 Comparison of scenarios

As illustrated in Chart 2.8, the timing of the impact of the policy scenario is non-linear while

the rainfall and climate change scenarios have relatively linear impacts. As a consequence,

the forecast drier future scenario (which combines the impacts of climate change with the

proposed Murray Darling Basin plan impacts) is non-linear in its impacts.

Real GRP impacts are greatest under the policy scenario, although the impacts moderate

beyond 2020 as landuse becomes more optimised to the drier conditions and the economy

adjusts. Conversely, the rainfall and climate change impacts are more gradual; however,

despite the linear loss in water over time in these scenarios, the impacts accelerate slightly

reflecting the increased cost of each unit of water lost over time.


16


Chart 2.8: Real GRP impacts, compared to BAU

2.5 Sensitivity analysis

The impact of the water availability scenarios is expected to be non-linear, in terms of costs

per unit of water lost. That is, the impacts of a 20% decline in water available for irrigation

are more than double the impacts of a 10% decline. This occurs both in:

• agriculture, where the least efficient water uses are assumed to go first, meaning that

the cost of each additional unit of water lost is greater as more water is lost; and

• the broader economy, where the flow-on impacts from a decline in agriculture become

harder to adjust to as the decline increases in magnitude.

In other words, the multiplier effect on the rest of the economy from each dollar of

production lost in agriculture becomes larger as the losses become larger.


for the two sensitivity analyses:

Table 2.13: Water assumptions of sensitivity one


Projections

Table 2.14: Water assumptions of sensitivity two



17


As shown in Table 2.15, doubling the cut to water available for irrigation – from a 26.2% cut

to a 52.4% cut – by 2030 more than doubled the reduction in both the value of agricultural

production and GRP.

Table 2.15: Sensitivity analysis


Sensitivity One:


Value of dryland agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) $0.1 million -$0.1 million



Sensitivity Two:


Value of dryland agricultural production ($A, 2010 prices) -$0.4 million -$1.4 million



Limitation of our work

General use restriction

This report is prepared solely for the internal use of Namoi Councils. This report is not intended to and should not be used or relied upon by anyone else and we accept no duty of care to any other person or entity. You should not refer to or use our name or the advice for any other purpose.

Contact us

Deloitte Access Economics

ACN: 49 633 116

Level 1

9 Sydney Avenue

Barton ACT 2600

PO Box 6334

Kingston ACT 2604 Australia

Tel: +61 2 6175 2000

Fax: +61 2 6175 2001

www.deloitte.com/au/economics

Deloitte Access Economics is Australia’s pre-

eminent economics advisory practice and a

member of Deloitte's global economics

group. The Directors and staff of Access

Economics joined Deloitte in early 2011.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche

Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited

by guarantee, and its network of member firms,

each of which is a legally separate and

independent entity. Please see

www.deloitte.com/au/about for a detailed

description of the legal structure of Deloitte

Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.

About Deloitte

Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and

financial advisory services to public and private

clients spanning multiple industries. With a

globally connected network of member firms in

more than 150 countries, Deloitte brings world-

class capabilities and deep local expertise to help

clients succeed wherever they operate. Deloitte's

approximately 170,000 professionals are

committed to becoming the standard of

excellence.

About Deloitte Australia

In Australia, the member firm is the Australian

partnership of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. As one

of Australia’s leading professional services firms.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its affiliates provide

audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory

services through approximately 5,400 people

across the country. Focused on the creation of

value and growth, and known as an employer of

choice for innovative human resources programs,

we are dedicated to helping our clients and our

people excel. For more information, please visit

our web site at www.deloitte.com.au.


Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited


nsw have your say

Documents