By Dominique Tassell
Granite Belt Irrigation Project (GBIP) lodged its financial report recently, giving insight into the current state of the project.
The report shows that GBIP spent $66,882 on advertising and promotion, $41,818 on corporate legal expenses, $81,500 on corporate secretarial expenses, and $213,700 on “finance services and finance advisory”.
They also spent $32,951 on insurance, $210, 932 on management advisory services, $210,000 on “strategic advisory”, $134,078 on other expenses, and $39,114 on travel.
In 2021 there was a net loss of $1.9m, compared to a profit of $1.7m in 2020.
The report also states that assets are down from $1.4m last year to $880k this year.
The report shows a net refund of $46,260 to irrigators, which may be due to withdrawals of investors from the scheme.
Based on the net receipts for the prior year of $244k, this would represent a net withdrawal of around 20 per cent.
GBIP stated that they “are delighted that the project remains fully subscribed with more than 50 entities seeking to access annual water entitlements from the scheme”.
“Where entities have withdrawn from the scheme their allocation has been taken up by another entity.
“As with all agreements, this information is commercial in confidence.”
The statement does not provide figures for how much has been spent on the valuation of land for the project, as reportedly in some cases this was done twice, or how much has been spent on legal fees for negotiating with landholders.
GBIP stated this is commercial in confidence.
The report gives a figure of $18,274 for a lease agreement, but GBIP has not confirmed if this is the cost of renting their Maryland Street office.
They did, however, state that renting that office is a requirement of their funding agreement.
The report also does not state what individuals involved in the project are earning for their work, which GBIP again stated is commercial in confidence.
The company has prepared its financial statements not on a going concern basis, stating this is due to uncertainty regarding the future timing of the project.
The directors are confident of solvency until February 2022, although they are “reducing project activity and minimising expenditure to maintain liquidity”.
The report referenced “uncertainty of future funding” and says that “the timing and outcome of the project progressing to construction is unknown”.
It also states that “no forecast can be made beyond February 2022 at this stage”.
Locals have also raised concerns about the project, questioning why the government is so involved in the project.
One local questioned how the project can possibly say they have reached agreements with 96 per cent of affected landholders, stating that according to their calculations they believe less than half have reached agreements.
“They need to provide accurate information about the landholders directly affected by the dam – those who stand to lose their homes – not just anyone who might have a pipe running through their property with minimal disruption.”
They questioned what GBIP means by an agreement, as it could be used very vaguely.
“It seems to me that they just want to use ridiculous figures to mislead the community and the government,” they said. “So much for honesty and transparency!”
GBIP stated that they defined landholders as “those landholders whose property will need to be accessed, or require an easement through, to build the dam and irrigation distribution scheme”.
“The 96 per cent represents both the total number of properties that the Project and the landholder has reached an access agreement or acquisition for, and those which are in the process of negotiating an agreement,” they said.
Locals have previously come forward to criticise GBIP’s conduct when acquiring land for the project, stating that GBIP changed from wanting agreed upon amounts of land to stating they wanted whole properties and would not negotiate anything else.
Four landholders involved in the project have reportedly been told by GBIP that the project now wants to purchase their entire properties as opposed to the previously agreed upon sections of land.
GBIP did not send in their responses to our questions in time to make the printed edition of our newspaper, however, did send through a statement from Lloyd Taylor for us to quote.
In the statement, he says “I would like to acknowledge the patience and understanding of landholders who recognise the complexities of a significant infrastructure project like this, especially as delivery moves closer”.
The statement once more quotes the figure of 96 per cent of affected landholders reaching agreements with GBIP.
In the statement, Mr Taylor states that “negotiations continue with a small number of participating landholders, however, we have undertaken and finalised commercial negotiations with most impacted landholders and their legal representatives”.
He states that “the land being procured will either be used for the dam inundation area, as a water quality buffer zone, or as environmental offsets”.
“Land used for environmental offset will be managed by the Queensland Government and will create new, or recovered, habitat connectivity from land surrounding the dam and pipeline sites, resulting in a net gain in the flora and fauna habitat in the area.”
Environmental offset for the project was reportedly originally going to be scattered around the region, with questions about why the project decided to change tactics late last year left unanswered.
Locals have previously questioned why the project involves building bike paths and solar panels on land acquired for the building of a dam.
In his statement, Mr Taylor said that “restoring the community funded bikeway and Stalling Lane access has always been in the Project’s scope as has the inclusion of solar power to move/pump water”.
Mr Taylor also referenced the recent rain, stating that gauges have demonstrated that “based on the dam’s storage of 12,000ML, the dam would have filled 8.7 times, which is effectively 27 years’ worth of water if the entire annual water allocation 3,900ML was used”.
One local raised concerns that recent rain, and full dams across the region, may draw attention away from the dam needing to be built. On the other hand, they stated that governments had invested so much money that they may want to see it through “so they have something to show for all that money”.
When questioned, Southern Downs Regional Council CEO Dave Burges said SDRC is still supportive of the project.
He also stated that the delay regarding government funding may simply be due to KPIs not being met, one of which would be assumed to be an agreement with all affected landholders.
GBIP stated that “a series of activities and milestone deliverables are agreed between Granite Belt Water and the funding bodies, and once achieved, funding is then made available”.
GBIP recently released a statement regarding a “Go/Stop/ Pause decision point”, which has raised questions from locals.
They stated the pause will allow discussions to be held with the Australian and Queensland goverments on the project’s design, costings and approvals.
Locals have questioned what exactly this means, and how long this pause will last.
GBIP stated that “there is no maximum amount of time for the pause to last”.
In our previous article, Jacqui and Martin Heppleston said they don’t feel they can buy another property to move to, because even if a deal was made GBIP would be able to “pause” the project for years with next to no notice.
Another local questioned whether this meant landholders’ lives will be on pause for another decade while those behind the project “scratch their heads under their hats to come up with more lies to help them squeeze more money from the government, more deposits from farmers, and more blood out of the granite”.
In GBIP’s statement, Mr Taylor states that “the local area’s water security, drought resistance and climate adaption remain at the heart of this Project, and we will always be as transparent as possible with the Southern Downs community, while we deliver this important work”.
*This article includes some information not included in the print edition, as GBIP did not respond with their answers to our questions until after our deadline had passed.
