|
senate vote 2012-11-20#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-17 10:20:38
|
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 - Ground water amendment
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I move amendment (2) relating to ground water on sheet 7310:</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 23), after item 9, insert:</p><p class="italic">9A After subsection 22(9)</p><p class="italic">  Insert:</p><p class="italic">(9A) The Basin Plan must not allow any increase to ground water extraction unless:</p><p class="italic">  (a) the proposed ground water extraction has been assessed using a regional scale, multi-layer, transient groundwater flow model that is linked to existing surface water models and demonstrates the impact of the proposed ground water extraction on:</p><p class="italic">     (i) surface water systems and flows; and</p><p class="italic">     (ii) ground water dependent ecosystems; and</p><p class="italic">     (iii) the long-term sustainability of the aquifer; and</p><p class="italic">  (b) the assessment takes into account the cumulative impact of all existing ground water extractions and the proposed ground water extraction; and</p><p class="italic">  (c) if the proposed ground water extraction will cause a reduction in surface water—the quantity of ground water to be extracted will be offset through the purchase, by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, of water rights to an equivalent quantity of surface water.</p><p>This amendment is very important to ensure that, whatever the details are of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan when it is tabled in this place next week by the minister, we do not see just a grab-all for the allowed increased extraction of groundwater without the knowledge of the impact that that groundwater—</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senators, if you wish to remain in the chamber please do so, but quietly; otherwise, please exit the chamber quietly.</p><p>The purpose of this amendment is to adhere to a precautionary principle which would require an appropriate review to be undertaken to ensure that there cannot be an increase in groundwater extraction without the full knowledge of the impact that that is going to have on the surface water, the connectivity issues of recharge rates and the impact on ecologies drawing on the groundwater. It would look at the proposed extraction in the light of all other existing groundwater extractions and if the proposed extraction reduces surface water it would require the Commonwealth to ensure that they buy back the equivalent amount. This is important because we know that there is going to be a level set in the basin plan of 2,750 gigalitres. Yet there is also an allowance for an increase in groundwater extraction, to 1,700 gigalitres. When you add them together you find that there is a much smaller amount of water that is going to be returned to the river. And no-one knows quite what the direct connectivity and impact of the increase of groundwater extraction is going to have on the surface water.</p><p>The CSIRO has said that this is of concern. We know that the National Water Commission has said that it is a concern and that unless otherwise established it should be assumed that all surface and groundwater systems are connected and that the eventual impact of groundwater pumping on surface water flow may be as high as 100 per cent. The Commonwealth's own National Water Commission suggests that it could be as high as 100 per cent, so if we allowed a return to the environment of 2,750 gigalitres, yet at exactly the same time we allowed an increased extraction rate of groundwater of up to 1,700 gigalitres, it would not leave much water, at the end of the day, to be given back to the river.</p><p>The Murray-Darling Basin Authority have not looked at this properly. They have ignored the advice of the National Water Commission. Indeed, looking at some of the previous positions taken by Mr Burke, they have even been ignoring his advice in relation to his previous concerns about the impact of groundwater extraction in areas such as Queensland and the expansion of coal-seam gas development there. Last year the minister required that Queensland had to develop a regional-scale, multilayer transient groundwater flow model of the cumulative effects of multiple CSG development. This is the minister's own precedent, that you cannot just pump gigalitre after gigalitre after gigalitre of water out of the watertable in groundwater extraction without understanding the impact that that is going to have as to the connectivity of surface water and other systems. This is what this amendment is saying: unless we know what the impact is going to be and unless we can account for the impact that it will have on the overall return rate to the environment, we should not be able to do it. It is simply taking a precautionary principle.</p><p>At a time when we have spent decades, not just in this place but across states, debating the overallocation of water resources in terms of the traditional surface water in the Murray-Darling Basin, one would imagine that we would not want to repeat the bad old mistakes all over again. We are now about to spend billions upon billions of dollars having to buy back water entitlements because of overallocation of surface water. We should not be looking back in 50, 60 or 70 years time and seeing that this parliament did not take today the precautionary principle into account and ensure that we kept track of the allocations of groundwater extraction. We do not want to have to be here all over again having to buy back groundwater allocations because they are having such a significant impact on the overall level of water throughout the Murray-Darling Basin system. As I have already mentioned, the National Water Commission has already said that until otherwise proven we should be assuming that there is a 100 per cent relationship between groundwater and surface water—and that is what this amendment goes to.</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>The government does not accept the amendment moved by the Greens. Can I then simply say that the proposed amendment places additional requirements on the authority by determining that the level of take must be done in a particular way. It is not the way that we are suggesting in the bill as to how it would operate. The way the Basin Plan would operate is as follows. When made, it will set an environmentally sustainable level of take. The bill requires, at section 23A(3)(b), that the sustainable diversion limit after it is adjusted reflect an environmentally sustainable level of take. That is, of course, the way the bill would operate and on that basis we do not see the need for this amendment. The way it particularly specifies that should be determined is not consistent with the operation of the bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I would like to ask the minister what is the government's response to the National Water Commission's position and advice that unless otherwise established it should be assumed that all surface and groundwater systems are connected and to the therefore negative impact that that is going to have on the overall figure of water to be returned to the river under the plan?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>Again I think there is a missed point here. The Basin Plan will address that, not the commission.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>With all due respect, Mr Chairman, the minister did not respond to my question. I am asking: what is the government's response to that advice given to the government by the National Water Commission? Is the minister suggesting that the National Water Commission is incorrect?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>I will say it for the last time, hopefully. The Basin Plan sets the precautionary approach and the Basin Plan will deal with the matter. It is not a matter of setting one body against another.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>But what is your response to their advice?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>As I said, the Basin Plan will deal with it.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I will take it that the government cannot give a response to that advice. It is not about what the authority thinks. I am asking what the government's response is to that advice. Are they suggesting that that advice is wrong?</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>I rise to say I believe that the issue that Senator Hanson-Young is alluding to is slightly more complicated than the way she is presenting it in that it is definitely not pertinent to this bill. If anything, the ability within this bill for a limit to allow five per cent up or down would in essence give the government or the minister of the day the capacity if this were an issue to be addressed. Because it is five per cent up or down, that gives a capacity of up to 710 gigalitres up or down and that in itself would give some room for movement if the issues that she was alluding to were correct. I think it is completely confusing the aspect of what belongs in here if we start dealing with that issue tonight.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>With all due respect to Senator Joyce, this bill before us allows for the adjustment down or up of the water to be returned to the river as suggested by the authority based on a number of things. If the result of an increased groundwater extraction is negative, then that must be reflected in the authority's decision as to whether adjusting up or down is indeed a smart thing to do.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 7310 moved by the Australian Greens be agreed to.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Senator Hanson-Young, do you still wish to move your next amendment (3) on sheet 7310?</p> - The majority voted against the Greens [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F7c105297-dd59-43c5-ad76-cbefe3272dd5%2F0173;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F7c105297-dd59-43c5-ad76-cbefe3272dd5%2F0000%22 amendment] that prevents any increase to ground water extraction unless certain assessment processes take place.
- This means that the majority of senators disagreed with the amendment.
- The amendment was introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young] and its purpose is to adhere to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle precautionary principle]. It was introduced in the context of the [http://www.mdba.gov.au/what-we-do/basin-plan Murray Darling Basin Plan] and addresses a concern within the Greens Party that there is insufficient knowledge about the impact of groundwater extraction on surface water levels.
- Background to the bill
- The purpose of the bill is to allow the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to make adjustments to the long-term average sustainable diversion limit set by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.[1] 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 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.
|