|
representatives vote 2023-10-18#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-28 20:43:55
|
Title
Bills — Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism (SDLAM) projects
Description
<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>I move amendment (3), as circulated in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of [amendments (4) to (6)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.40.1), which means they will now become part of the bill. They were introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent).
- ### What do the amendments do?
- Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.40.1):
- > *Under the 2012 Basin Plan, basin states and the Commonwealth agreed to recover 2,750 gigalitres of water for the environment. To achieve this goal, the Basin Plan allows states to propose projects that will deliver an equivalent environmental outcome to buying back water licences without removing water from the consumptive pool. This is known as the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, and projects are referred to as sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects, or SDLAM projects. In total, the proposed SDLAM projects promise to deliver 605 gigalitres of equivalent environmental benefits, yet we're seeing delays. There are significant questions about whether the projects will deliver the promised benefits...*
- >
- > *Independent and transparent scrutiny of these projects is absolutely necessary to ensure the Australian public and the environment are not being short-changed on taxpayer money for projects to return water to the basin. This scrutiny is the role of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. The inspector-general must have appropriate powers to hold basin states accountable and to determine compliance with sustainable diversion limits and the promised outcomes of projects.*
- >
- > *My amendments further strengthen the inspector-general's powers to make sure the states and projects are delivering. They enable the inspector to undertake an independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's sustainable diversion limit, or SDL, calculations. These audits can be undertaken by the inspector-general or an independent person or body they appoint. SDLAM accounting, knowing what water is returned to the environment via supply or efficiency projects, should be done in a comprehensive, transparent and publicly accessible way that uses the best available science. This is to ensure that benefits for the environment are aligned with the targets of the Basin Plan.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(4) Schedule 2, item 49, page 24 (lines 9 to 13), omit the item.*
- >
- > *(5) Schedule 2, page 24 (after line 13), after item 49, insert:*
- >
- >> *49A After subsection 7.27(1)*
- >>
- >> *Insert:*
- >>
- >> *(1A) The Inspector-General may:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) audit calculations made by the Authority for the purposes of Parts 2 and 4; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) appoint or establish a person or body that is independent of the Authority to audit calculations made by the Authority for the purposes of Parts 2 and 4.*
- >
- > *(6) Schedule 2, item 50, page 24 (line 15), after "Inspector-General", insert "(unless the Inspector-General is conducting the audit)".*
<p class="italic">11A After subsection 86AJ(3)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">(3A) In conducting a review under subsection (1), a panel must also consider the effectiveness of payments made, or expected to be made, under paragraph 86AD(2)(c) in relation to a purchase referred to in paragraph 86AD(2)(b).</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (lines 3 to 5), omit subsection 7.08A(3), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(3) The roadmap, and any substantive amendments of the roadmap, must be prepared in consultation with:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Basin States; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the Commonwealth; and</p><p class="italic">(c) affected communities and landholders; and</p><p class="italic">(d) the public.</p><p class="italic">Consultation must be active, timely and address the underpinning science for the intended measures and outcomes.</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 2, item 49, page 24 (lines 9 to 13), omit the item.</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 2, page 24 (after line 13), after item 49, insert:</p><p>The amendment requires road maps for the constraints relaxation projects to be prepared in consultation with the basin states, the Commonwealth, affected communities, landholders and the public. Consultation must be active and timely and must address the underpinning science for the intended measures and outcomes. Constraints relaxation projects are an important part of delivering environmental benefits for the basin. This bill aims to drive progress for delivery constraints projects across the southern basin by allowing the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to develop and implement constraints road maps.</p><p>When I consulted on this bill, I heard from farmers and land and water management authorities that flooding resulting from environmental flows can have negative impacts on farming properties, infrastructure and riverbanks. Just last week, I visited local farmers Jock Blakeney and Jan Beer on the Goulburn River, who showed me what can happen to farms when floods occur because of high flows from Eildon weir, one of the basin's largest water storages. Jock, Jan and other farmers on the Goulburn and below Hume dam, the largest water storage, stand to be significantly impacted by increased environmental flows. Jock pointed out pastures under water that had been mere days away from being cut for silage; that crop is now lost. In other areas, silage bales were like islands dotted throughout flooded paddocks.</p><p>These are areas that have been flooded multiple times in the recent La Nina years, with each flood killing pasture, introducing weeds and damaging fencing. Returning the land to production after a flood takes time and money, and, with the potential for environmental flows to result in flooding in seven out of 10 years, local farmers are questioning whether it's worth continuing to farm on these areas.</p><p>Part of the issue is the timing of water releases. For many, mid-spring to late spring is too late to be releasing high volumes of environmental water flows, as spring is the very time when farmers are trying to apply fertiliser, grow silage and put cattle on the most productive areas. Further, I've heard that landholders are not provided with adequate warning of when releases will occur and what the intended outcomes of the releases are. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority often does not provide specific information about locally important issues, like these constraints projects.</p><p>This amendment ensures that affected communities and landholders are adequately consulted about a constraints project affecting them, including the intended outcomes. Communities dissatisfied with basin state or Commonwealth efforts to engage with or compensate them on constraints projects should have avenues for recourse. This is not in the bill, but I urge the minister to please consider this further. Increased flows could change the way of life of these communities in the same way that buybacks could change the way of life of other communities. Therefore, all negatively impacted communities deserve to be engaged with, listened to and compensated, and that's what this amendment seeks to achieve.</p> <p class="speaker">Tanya Plibersek</p><p>I completely understand the intent of the member for Indi in moving this amendment and in flagging the importance of effective community consultation and other landholder consultation on the constraints relaxation program. I absolutely understand and agree with the intent. However, the government won't be supporting this amendment, because we believe that the measures that we've already taken to ensure that consultation will do the job that the member for Indi has identified. The constraints relaxation program is absolutely critical to making sure that, when we recover water for environmental purposes, that water makes it safely into the areas that require it, including into the flood plains that require that watering.</p><p>The bill already requires the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to undertake consultation for the constraints relaxation implementation road map, both during the development of that road map and at any time that it's amended. In addition to the requirements in the bill, state governments, which are responsible for implementing these programs, must also undertake stakeholder consultation through the existing federation funding agreements, including community engagement and negotiation frameworks and plans. I also want to reassure the member for Indi that, as part of the constraints relaxation implementation road map, a new independent constraints facilitator will make sure that we do much better community and landholder consultation when it comes to constraints relaxation.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (4) to (6), as circulated in my name, together:</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 2, item 49, page 24 (lines 9 to 13), omit the item.</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 2, page 24 (after line 13), after item 49, insert:</p><p class="italic">49A After subsection 7.27(1)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) The Inspector-General may:</p><p class="italic">(a) audit calculations made by the Authority for the purposes of Parts 2 and 4; or</p><p class="italic">(b) appoint or establish a person or body that is independent of the Authority to audit calculations made by the Authority for the purposes of Parts 2 and 4.</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 2, item 50, page 24 (line 15), after "Inspector-General", insert "(unless the Inspector-General is conducting the audit)".</p><p>Under the 2012 Basin Plan, basin states and the Commonwealth agreed to recover 2,750 gigalitres of water for the environment. To achieve this goal, the Basin Plan allows states to propose projects that will deliver an equivalent environmental outcome to buying back water licences without removing water from the consumptive pool. This is known as the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, and projects are referred to as sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects, or SDLAM projects. In total, the proposed SDLAM projects promise to deliver 605 gigalitres of equivalent environmental benefits, yet we're seeing delays. There are significant questions about whether the projects will deliver the promised benefits. In New South Wales, in particular, many of these projects have not even begun or have changed so significantly that they will not deliver the promised benefits.</p><p>This bill extends the deadline for these SDLAM projects. I support that. It also includes provisions which ensure basin states are held to account for meeting their obligations in relation to these projects. These are important provisions, which I support, so we can deliver on the 2012 base plan targets, but they can be improved.</p><p>Independent and transparent scrutiny of these projects is absolutely necessary to ensure the Australian public and the environment are not being short-changed on taxpayer money for projects to return water to the basin. This scrutiny is the role of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. The inspector-general must have appropriate powers to hold basin states accountable and to determine compliance with sustainable diversion limits and the promised outcomes of projects.</p><p>My amendments further strengthen the inspector-general's powers to make sure the states and projects are delivering. They enable the inspector to undertake an independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's sustainable diversion limit, or SDL, calculations. These audits can be undertaken by the inspector-general or an independent person or body they appoint. SDLAM accounting, knowing what water is returned to the environment via supply or efficiency projects, should be done in a comprehensive, transparent and publicly accessible way that uses the best available science. This is to ensure that benefits for the environment are aligned with the targets of the Basin Plan.</p><p>It's the general practice of the inspector to make its work publicly available and therefore transparent, so, if these independent audits are showing that projects are not meeting their promised environmental benefits, we will know. The public then must see a path to compliance or a path to ensure the environmental benefits are delivered by other means.</p><p>In drafting this amendment, I particularly wish to thank the Water for Indi group, a voluntary community group that I set up in 2019 with local experts, including Dr Anna Roberts and Patten Bridge, who have experience across all impacted sectors. Water for Indi note that improved accountability includes the need to provide better publicly accessible information, such as catchment-by-catchment information about sustainable diversion limits and progress against meeting catchment-by-catchment targets. We need to improve the granularity of hydrological modelling and water reporting units, and, linked to this, we need better data and we need whole-of-basin modelling. Better data includes additional gauges to report on inflows and outflows of tributaries across the basin.</p><p>The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists' work also informed this amendment, and they want that process used by the basin authority for determining the sustainable diversion limit with the best available science.</p><p>Improving data and modelling will improve the accountability and outcome for all basin actors, and any independent audit must encompass these best-practice methods. I thank the minister and her office for working with me so constructively on this particular amendment, and I look forward to her response.</p> <p class="speaker">Tanya Plibersek</p><p>As Dr Haines, the member for Indi, has said, this amendment will empower the Inspector-General of Water Compliance to undertake an audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's sustainable diversion limit calculations in their capacity as an independent entity. The amendment further bolsters the audit powers of the inspector-general to ensure accountability and transparency of water accounting methods relating to the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism reconciliation process and the 450-gigalitre target.</p><p>I'm very pleased that the government have been able to work so constructively with the member for Indi on these amendments (4) to (6), as circulated in her name, and that we have been able to work with both the member for Indi and the member for Mayo to strengthen the accountability mechanisms in this bill.</p><p>Of those sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects that the member has alluded to, about a third are complete, about a third are on track and about a third are looking quite dicey. We'll continue to work with the states. Extending the time frames in the plan, as we're doing with this legislation, gives us the opportunity to complete those projects that can be completed. We've also said to basin states and the ACT that we're happy to look at additional projects, should they emerge. I'll spend a moment saying that the Inspector-General of Water Compliance has done an excellent job to date. Engaging the inspector-general in this way is an excellent step to increase compliance and transparency, and I thank the member for putting forward the amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that amendments (4) to (6), moved by the honourable member for Indi, be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|