|
senate vote 2012-11-21#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-23 15:27:14
|
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 - Adjustments
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I move Australian Greens amendment (4) on sheet 7310:</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 29 to 33), omit subsection 23A(4), substitute:</p>- The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-11-21.7.1 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 put a limit on proposed adjustments to sustainable diversion limits set by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It stated that ''"One or more adjustments may be proposed by the [Murray Darling Basin] Authority ... only if the adjustment ... would not have the effect of reducing the volume of water available for the environment."''[1]
- 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.[2] 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=2012-11-21.7.1 contribution] for more information about the amendment.
- * [2] 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 class="italic"> <i>  </i> <i>Limit on proposed adjustments</i></p><p class="italic">(4) One or more adjustments may be proposed by the Authority under paragraph (1)(a), and an adjustment may be proposed under paragraph (1)(b) as a result of those adjustments, only if the adjustment under paragraph (1)(b) would not have the effect of reducing the volume of water available for the environment.</p><p>This amendment is in relation to the adjustment ability within this legislation. As we know, in the bill as it currently stands there is an ability to adjust down, or reduce, the amount of water to be returned to the river and back to the environment or to increase it, but only to five per cent. This amendment would put a floor on the amount of water that the plan sets as the appropriate level of the minimum of water to be returned to the river. This amendment will remove the ability to regulate down and to reduce the level of water to be returned to the river—after, of course, the plan has been approved by the parliament.</p><p>We would also remove the cap on the level of achievement, because, as we know, this is a plan that is meant to stretch 20 years. This plan takes us out until 2030. With a drying climate, the impact of climate change with less run-off in the system, and changes to various parts of the Murray-Darling Basin in terms of the climate, it may be that we find that those targets or outcomes that we have set out to achieve in terms of restoring various environmental icon sites—how we manage the system—may need more water than the minimum that the plan has set. It may be that we need more than that extra five per cent, so we should not be putting a cap and limiting our level of achievement. Of course it still has to come back to parliament. There has to be the modelling to prove it and it has to go through all of that process, but why would we want to lock in a ceiling that limits our achievement for the next 20 years?</p><p>In my home state of South Australia, we know that the plan that is on the table is not enough to get us through the next drought. It is not enough to save our citrus growers in the Riverland. It is not enough to ensure that the dairy farmers throughout the bottom end of the system have water of a quality that is okay to feed their stock. We know that it is not enough in the drier years to keep the Murray mouth open. Why would we want to lock in failure?</p><p>This amendment takes away that limit and ensures that, regardless of who the next government may or may not be or the government after that or the government after that or the government after that, you cannot just reduce the amount of water being returned to the river. Under the current legislation, if the plan is put to the parliament next week by the minister at a base level of 2,750 gigalitres, this would allow the amount of water to be returned by 2019 to the river system of only 2,100 gigalitres. That is half of what the best available science says is needed. That is death to the Coorong. That is a nail in the coffin to the lower stretches of the river and it does not give communities certainty throughout the basin that they will have a healthy, living river in years to come.</p><p>Unless we amend this part of the legislation, the only amount of water that will be guaranteed to be returned back to the environment is 2,100 gigalitres. That is not enough to save the system. That will condemn the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. It will not flush out the two million tonnes of salt each year that we need to flush through the system to keep the water quality healthy. It will not provide water certainty for the communities that rely on it. Over the next 20 years, we need to adapt to the climate as the climate changes—that is what this amendment is about—and ensuring that we do not limit our ability to look after the environment, look after the communities and not allow the amount of water to be returned to the river to be cut in half.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>There is already in this legislation the capacity that you cannot adjust down unless there is environmental neutrality. That is already part of the structure. If there is environmental neutrality and you want to help citrus growers or stock and domestic water suppliers as stated by Senator Hanson-Young then why should those people not have the capacity to utilise that water for irrigation? It is not saying that it is going to happen but in fact it is weighted more towards the environment—vastly more towards the environment—because you can only go down if there is environmental neutrality. One of the issues we have is that you can go up without economic and social neutrality.</p><p>To agree to this would be to go completely against all the negotiations that have happened thus far over a very protracted period of time where we are trying to get people from all sides of this debate together and this would work completely at odds with that.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>In brief response to Senator Joyce: last night both the government and the opposition voted down the exact environmental targets that the plan would have to be benchmarked to, so they are not there. Maybe Senator Joyce was not paying attention last night but, if he was, he would remember that those targets are not in here. There is no benchmark, so South Australia has absolutely no guarantee that the next government could not come in here and legislate downwards the amount of water to be returned to the system. Tough luck for South Australia. Tough luck for the Coorong. Tough luck for the Lower Lakes. Tough luck for the Riverland. Tough luck for other communities throughout the basin who do not have in this legislation a guarantee of what those environmental targets are going to be. Senator Joyce can talk as much as he likes about the fact that the water will not be reduced, unless those environmental achievements and targets are met, except that he voted not to put them in the legislation, so it actually means nothing.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>The bill enables the Basin Plan to include an adjustment mechanism that can both decrease the sustainable diversion limit making more water available for the environment and increase the SDL reducing the amount of environmental water needing to be recovered. This amendment would restrict the mechanism to operate only one way and does not recognise that there are ways in which environmental water can be used more efficiently while achieving equivalent environmental outcomes.</p><p>The government supports an approach that both provides for environmental water to be used as efficiently as possible while maintaining the environmental outcomes of the Basin Plan and makes further environmental water available improving the environmental outcomes of the basin. Making this further water available is to be done in a manner that maintains or improves the social and economic outcomes in the basin. The five per cent limit is necessary to provide assurance about the range of change permissible under this plan.</p><p>(The Chairman—Senator Parry)</p>
|