|
senate vote 2012-11-20#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-23 14:00:19
|
Title
Bills — Water Amendment (Long-Term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012; in Committee- Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Adoption of amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Chair, would you accommodate me in moving the last group, which would be amendments (1) and (5) together before I go on to the others?</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: That is fine.</p>- The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-11-20.162.7 amendment] moved by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
- The amendment outlines a number of key targets that the Greens believe will "ensure that we set a proper benchmark" for future long-term average sustainable diversion limits.[1] For example, the amendment requires that the mouth of the River Murray "be open to an average annual depth of 1 metre or more for at least 95% of years and to an average annual depth of 0.7 metres or more for at least 95% of years".[2]
- Background to the bill
- The purpose of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4884 bill] is to allow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_Basin_Authority Murray-Darling Basin Authority] to make adjustments to the long-term average sustainable diversion limit set by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.[3] Sustainable diversion limits are the average water quantities that can be taken from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling basin] sustainably and their aim is to return water to the environment.
- References
- * [1] See Senator Hanson-Young's [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-11-20.162.7 contribution] for more information.
- * [2] This is section 6A(c)(iv) of [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-11-20.162.7 amendment (5)].
- * [3] See the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2012262/upload_binary/2012262.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (809KB) for more information on the bill and its purpose.
<p>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (5) on sheet 7310.</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:</p><p class="italic">1A Subsection 4(1)</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 9 (after line 30), after subsection 23B(6), insert:</p><p class="italic">(6A) The Minister must not adopt the amendment unless the Minister is satisfied that, if the amendment is made:</p><p class="italic">  (a) the long-term average sustainable diversion limit will continue to reflect an environmentally sustainable level of take; and</p><p class="italic">  (b) Australia's international obligations under the Ramsar Convention will be upheld; and</p><p class="italic">  (c) the long-term average sustainable diversion limit will maintain or improve the following environmental outcomes:</p><p class="italic">     (i) in relation to average daily salinity levels for Lake Alexandrina—less than 1500EC at all times and less than 1000EC for 95% of the time;</p><p class="italic">     (ii) in relation to average daily salinity levels for Coorong, South Lagoon—must not exceed 100 grams per litre in any 2 consecutive years and must remain less than 100 grams per litre for 96% of the time;</p><p class="italic">     (iii) in relation to barrage flows—greater than 2000 gigalitres per year on a 3 year rolling basis, with a minimum of 650 gigalitres per year for 95% of years, greater than 600 gigalitres in any 2 year period and greater than zero gigalitres in all years;</p><p class="italic">     (iv) in relation to the mouth of the River Murray—the mouth to be open to an average annual depth of 1 metre or more for at least 95% of years and to an average annual depth of 0.7 metres or more for at least 95% of years;</p><p class="italic">     (v) the environmental outcomes met under an integrated, Basin-wide, fit for purpose model run based on the levels of extraction contained in the BP-3200-RC model run and the 112 hydrologic indicator targets.</p><p>These amendments go right to the heart of what we need to be doing in setting a proper benchmark from which any adjustment to the plan must be measured. The amendments list a number of items that are crucial to ensuring that the Murray-Darling Basin plan continues to achieve the outcomes that it sets out.</p><p>These amendments outline a number of key targets—trigger points or safety nets—to ensure that we set a proper benchmark. If there is a desire to adjust the Basin Plan at any stage, we will always know what it is that we are measuring it against: salinity levels in the Lower Lakes—Lake Alexandrina; salinity levels in the Coorong and the southern lagoon; and the 112 target indicators that we used during the modelling by the authority of the 3,200 megalitre relaxed constraints run, which was the most recent model that the authority undertook.</p><p>The last thing we want to do is allow for an adjustment up or down of the Basin Plan in a way that means we are not meeting the outcomes we set out to achieve at the beginning. By 2016 when there is a review and an ability to ascertain whether the plan can be adjusted, we need to make sure we understand what the benchmarks are. This is about putting those benchmarks, putting those agreed achievement points, into the legislation so that everybody knows what the game is and everybody understands what the aim of the plan is meant to be.</p><p>As I mentioned, these targets are important specifically for my home state of South Australia, at the bottom of the system. We know, historically, that that region feels the brunt of a reduction in water first just because it is at the end of the system. Those salinity targets in places like Lake Alexandrina and the Coorong are absolutely crucial, but the main point of these amendments is that they identify environmental targets throughout the entire basin. It is not just about South Australia; this also includes targets in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—right throughout the basin. They are targets that the authority itself has already identified as important. These are important things we have to achieve if we are to meet the overall objectives of the Water Act, which of course is to restore to health and retain the health of the Murray-Darling Basin system and protect our Ramsar listed icon sites.</p><p>These amendments lay down those really crucial safety nets. If we do not have these things in place, there are no guarantees that in two, four, five or 10 years time any of the things we have set out to achieve today will be met. We need to make sure that any adjustment to the levels of water to be returned to the river measure up to our ultimate aim, and that is to restore, protect and sustain those crucial environmental targets so that communities can continue to rely on a healthy Murray, so that communities down the end of the system, in my home state of South Australia, know that they will not just have an adjustment brought to this place in parliament that, regardless of who is in government at the time, can just be ticked off without any understanding of the direct impact on the environment. As we know, in a drying climate, in a time of climate change, the needs of those icon sites and how these targets are being met and the ability to meet them will change. Setting down these needs and targets as solid benchmarks now will ensure that even though our approach to them will need to be flexible and we may adapt the amount of water needed to meet them, meeting them is the crucial point. That is what these amendments set out to ensure.</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>In response to amendments (1) and (5) but particularly (5), again it does appear that the Greens are making a mistake. It is a very prescriptive clause and the detail of that will be in the Basin Plan. That is where it should lie and that is the structure of this legislation. The Basin Plan will contain, as it does now, a range of indicia, numbers, to achieve what can effectively be called environmentally sustainable levels of take. You cannot use the framework legislation to effectively commit now, because the Basin Plan will highlight those.</p><p>The bill already requires—this is the important part—that the environmentally sustainable level of take be maintained. Section 23A(3)(b) says that, and, as it is an amendment to the Water Act, Australia's international obligations—which is also covered I think in the Greens amendment (5)—are already covered under the objects of the act, in section 3(b). On that basis the government will not be supporting the amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>We had some sympathy for the other amendments although we believed they were inappropriate, but these amendments have some serious issues. Salinity levels in the Coorong are a real problem, but a range of studies have shown that even with the flows we are having, with the floods, the salinity levels in certain corners have not changed. It comes down to whether there are other hydrological issues at play there, such as the drainage at the lower reaches of the Coorong and whether waters that have historically drained to the sea should be directed back into the Coorong, where they initially went. If we followed this through, we could pull down Dartmouth Dam and remove everything on the river but it would not necessarily fix the problem we are trying to address. We would never meet the targets that the Greens want.</p><p>Of course, when we get these direct levels of electrical conductivity, which is what EC stands for, we allow a trigger of events to happen all the way through the basin, where every town will come up with some environmental outcome that they desire. Griffith will say that they want a certain outcome and Dartmouth will say they want a certain outcome and Bourke will say they want an outcome—the result of that being that no water will get to South Australia, because every town will have its own call on a target prior to it getting there. It cannot be so particular for certain area because, of course, once we let (6A) of amendment (5), especially part (c), go through, it stands to reason that every senator from every state will walk in here with their own grab bag of certain targets that they want, which will bring the whole plan unstuck. One of the major overarching purposes of this legislation is to bring about a better outcome for South Australia, but if we become belligerent and targeted then we will call basically any senator from any state in the basin to come up with their desires for targets in their areas and the whole plan will fall over.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I will not labour the point too much longer but I do want to be able to respond to Senator Joyce, who has just exposed the fact that the coalition have no commitment to making sure that the plan that passes this place, as drafted currently, is actually going to be the plan that continues to exist, because these targets as outlined in this amendment are what is currently making up the government's legislation—their 450 legislation—and the requirement of the plan in relation to meeting the 3,200 gigalitres figure. So we have just exposed the fact that the coalition has absolutely no commitment to ensuring that this plan returns the water to the river in the future. Their whole strategy is to pass this plan, and to then relegate it down and make sure that none of these targets are actually met. Senator Joyce just stood here and said, 'If we let this through we will not possibly be able to do any of it.' These are exactly the things that the government is already trying to do—that the authority already has on the table. You either agree with them or you do not.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendments (5) and (1) on sheet 7310 be agreed to.</p>
|