ADJOURNMENT
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (19:50): With agriculture the largest contributor to GDP in my electorate, nothing will light up my phone more than when the Bureau of Meteorology fails my farmers and growers, who rely on it heavily to make decisions on a daily basis. I feel it incumbent on me to come into the House tonight and share with the parliament a number of concerns that have lit up my text box.
I will be most respectful to the House by removing the expletives from the contributions my farmers and growers have shared with me about the failings of the Bureau of Meteorology's technical upgrade. I don't suggest for a moment that the Bureau of Meteorology has done anything with a level of intent to upset my people, but tonight you need to know they are upset.
They are disappointed. They make their business decisions based on the 24-hour information that's available to them. They decide whether or not to shift cattle from one paddock to another.
They look at the growing seasons and decide whether or not they'll buy seedlings for planting. They will want to make sure that they don't put seedlings out just before a major rain event, where they will get flooded out. It is a valuable tool.
To be absolutely transparent, the Bureau of Meteorology has been a constant friend and ally of my agricultural sector. It has been something that my farmers and growers have relied on, but there is disappointment at the lack of consultation. The changes without notice have been disruptive to the point of getting me to my feet to raise this as a concern.
In front of me I have an image of the old radar and an image of the new radar. I have provided a copy to the House and to the Speaker, but I need to explain it for the benefit of the Hansard. The old radar image consists of a number of coloured images, and the coloured images reflect the rainfall potential.
Underneath the coloured image, there is a series of towns where the water levels are expected to land. In the new radar image, two-thirds of the towns are missing. It is only the major portions.
When someone in the Lockyer Valley is looking to irrigate or make a decision on a hundred-acre paddock and the town reference point they would usually use is no longer on the map—and the closest reference point is Ipswich—that is problematic. I am not seeking to come here to grandstand tonight. I am seeking to encourage the Bureau of Meteorology to reconsider some of the changes that have been made and to start some sense of consultation with the people who are going to be affected.
I'm going to read two texts—the ones that I can read—from different growers into the Hansard. I hope it gives some context. With the first one, they blew up: 'The bureau is mucking us around.' I said, 'Send me a text; tell me what's wrong.' The message reads: The problem is that it's not user friendly … If a storm was coming when the old system was in place, you would go BOM, Qld, Marburg and you have the image—then go out to 256 km to see what rain is behind.
The radar images are not as clear, more difficult to zero in on. The biggest issue I see is that the new system seems to want to highlight warnings and climate change issues at the expense of the excellent management tool that it has been. So we have growers who are actually commenting in their scathing report on the Bureau of Meteorology and asking them to reconsider.
The second one was this: That bom site is— they used an expletive, but I omit that for the benefit of the Hansard— and the forecasting and the radar is not as comprehensive as the old site especially with district … So, again, there are more compliments to the old BOM. It goes on: Very difficult to navigate and I really don't have 4 hours of my life to waste on how to navigate it.
And god help the older generation. It is actually a safety concern to the people especially in storm season which we experienced last couple of days. Seems like computer nerds left in charge with out practicality put into the system.
I actually have gone to Willie's weather— (Time expired)