|
senate vote 2013-02-06#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:17:58
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-02-06.45.1 Nationals amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Barnaby_Joyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Barnaby Joyce], the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate.Senator Joyce argues that there should be "a balance between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes".(Read Senator Joyce's whole contribution and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-06.6.1 here]. The debate on this amendment, called the Nationals amendment numbers (1) and (2) on sheet 7336, began at 11:16 am.
) This amendment supports this by requiring that the objective of "enhanc[ing] the environmental outcomes that can be achieved by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin#The_Murray.E2.80.93Darling_Basin_plan Basin Plan]" be pursued "while achieving neutral or beneficial socio-economic outcomes".(Read a copy of the bill [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0000%22 here]. The amendment was to add these quoted words at the end of subsection 86AA(1).
) Further, it adds an additional way to enhance these environmental outcomes by "(i) investing in water efficient infrastructure and other on-farm works".(This new subsection would have been added to the end of subsection 86AA(2), which you can see [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0000%22 here].
)Background to the billThe bill(A copy of the bill, its explanatory memoranda and amendments are available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4925 here].
) was introduced to establish an Environment Special Account to fund projects that protect and restore environmental assets of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) and protect water dependent biodiversity of the MDB.(Read more about the bill in this [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2073890/upload_binary/2073890.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (696 KB).) The projects will include those that increase the available environmental water in the MDB by 450 Gigalitres.References- The majority voted against a [Nationals amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-02-06.45.1) introduced by Senator [Barnaby Joyce](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Barnaby_Joyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate), the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate.
- Senator Joyce argues that there should be "a balance between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes".(Read Senator Joyce's whole contribution and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-06.6.1). The debate on this amendment, called the Nationals amendment numbers (1) and (2) on sheet 7336, began at 11:16 am. ) This amendment supports this by requiring that the objective of "enhanc[ing] the environmental outcomes that can be achieved by the [Basin Plan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin#The_Murray.E2.80.93Darling_Basin_plan)" be pursued "while achieving neutral or beneficial socio-economic outcomes".(Read a copy of the bill [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0000%22). The amendment was to add these quoted words at the end of subsection 86AA(1). ) Further, it adds an additional way to enhance these environmental outcomes by "(i) investing in water efficient infrastructure and other on-farm works".(This new subsection would have been added to the end of subsection 86AA(2), which you can see [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0000%22). )
- Background to the bill
- The bill(A copy of the bill, its explanatory memoranda and amendments are available [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4925). ) was introduced to establish an Environment Special Account to fund projects that protect and restore environmental assets of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) and protect water dependent biodiversity of the MDB.(Read more about the bill in this [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2073890/upload_binary/2073890.pdf;fileType=application/pdf) (696 KB).) The projects will include those that increase the available environmental water in the MDB by 450 Gigalitres.
- References
|
|
senate vote 2013-02-06#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-31 11:31:15
|
Title
Bills — Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012; in Committee- Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Socioeconomic outcomes
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 7314 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 6), omit "can be achieved", substitute "must be achieved".</p>- The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-02-06.45.1 Nationals amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Barnaby_Joyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Barnaby Joyce], the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate.
- Senator Joyce argues that there should be "a balance between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes".[1] This amendment supports this by requiring that the objective of "enhanc[ing] the environmental outcomes that can be achieved by the Basin Plan" be pursued "while achieving neutral or beneficial socio-economic outcomes".[2] Further, it adds an additional way to enhance these environmental outcomes by "(i) investing in water efficient infrastructure and other on-farm works".[3]
- Background to the bill
- The bill[4] was introduced to establish an Environment Special Account to fund projects that protect and restore environmental assets of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) and protect water dependent biodiversity of the MDB.[5] The projects will include those that increase the available environmental water in the MDB by 450 Gigalitres.
- References
- * [1] Read Senator Joyce's whole contribution and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-06.6.1 here]. The debate on this amendment, called the Nationals amendment numbers (1) and (2) on sheet 7336, began at 11:16 am.
- * [2] Read a copy of the bill [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0000%22 here]. The amendment was to add these quoted words at the end of subsection 86AA(1).
- * [3] This new subsection would have been added to the end of subsection 86AA(2), which you can see [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4925_third-reps%2F0000%22 here].
- * [4] A copy of the bill, its explanatory memoranda and amendments are available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4925 here].
- * [5] Read more about the bill in this [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2073890/upload_binary/2073890.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (696 KB).
<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 21), omit "per litre", substitute "per litre in any 2 consecutive years and less than 1000 electrical conductivity for 95% of the time during those 2 years".</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 1), omit "open", substitute "open to an average annual depth of 1 metre or more".</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 5), omit "as a long term average", substitute "over a 3 year rolling average".</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 35), after paragraph 86AA(3)(a), insert:</p><p class="italic">  (aa) purchasing water access rights in relation to Basin water resources to deliver environmental water to the environmental assets of the Murray Darling Basin; and</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 37), omit "by", substitute "at least".</p><p>The first lot of amendments here go to the environmental objectives in the bill. In my speech in the second reading debate I spoke about the inadequacy of guaranteeing the 450 gigalitre amount be returned. It says 450; we obviously need to understand that in order to achieve the environmental outcomes that we have all discussed that we want in order to restore the river's health, we would like to see at least 450 gigalitres returned. We also need some other environmental indicators in there.</p><p>This goes directly to what the objective of this bill is meant to achieve, and that is to guarantee the health of the system. I would like to hear the government's position on these amendments, seeing that we have heard directly from both the Prime Minister and the water minister that they both agree that 3,200 gigalitres in total is a minimum that is required in order to save the system and that it should not be capped at that amount.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I thank Senator Hanson-Young. We have heard many times the Prime Minister say that she is committed to the outcomes that the senator just referred to. She has taken a great deal of interest in the formation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I think that what has now been achieved by negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states gives us every prospect of returning the Murray-Darling Basin to good health and of protecting the communities that exist along the Murray-Darling Basin, including in your home state of South Australia, Mr Chairman.</p><p>I can certainly indicate that the Prime Minister fully supports the plan. She has been actively involved in keeping this process on track, and I think it is beyond question that she supports what has been achieved here in this agreement to restore the health of the Murray-Darling Basin.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>After reading the amendments put forward by Senator Hanson-Young, the coalition will not be supporting them. This would create a disaster, basically. The reason for this is that if you are obligated without question to provide all these outcomes then you would have to take action that could involve the shutting down of Deniliquin. You would have to take the water, as required—all of it—from Deniliquin, from Shepparton, from Mildura and from Berri. It would be an economic disaster. It is just impractical, taking into account the vagaries of the weather, to start asking for something, saying that the average daily salinity in Lake Alexandrina would have to be 1,000 microsiemens per centimetre for 95 per cent of the years and 1,500 microsiemens per centimetre for all time. If we get our heads put in a vice and told this is the predominant goal, then there is definitely no balance between social, economic and environmental outcomes. No-one would make a business plan upstream, with knowledge of these items, because they would know that at any point all their water could be purchased and taken. When you think about it, so many things are goals, because we have to take into account the vagaries of things that are before us. But when we make them explicit outcomes, then we completely and utterly turn the whole purpose of the plan on its head. I do not think that is economically credible. In fact, it is absolutely economically fatal.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Despite the hyperbole of Senator Joyce, I would just like to indicate that these amendments highlight what the environmental indicators are to ensure that the plan is meeting its objectives. If the whole point of the plan is to return the river system to health, then you need to know what that health looks like and that is precisely what these amendments do. We have all agreed that we want to return the river to health. You actually have to put some indicators down—and Senator Joyce has indicated that he disagrees with that. That just proves that the coalition have absolutely no commitment to ensuring that the plan, as currently constructed, would fulfil its objectives. These amendments state very clearly in environmental terms what those objectives are. Either you believe them or you do not. Either you think that is what we are meant to achieve or you use as many weasel words as possible to ensure that you do not have to deliver. As a senator for South Australia I know that, unless we have these environmental targets identified and accepted, then the upstream states will continue to just dismiss the environmental concerns downstream, where we are, particularly when the next drought happens.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I have a couple of comments. The first amendment is pretty much identical to an amendment that I will shortly be moving that relates to having at least 450 gigalitres to ensure that there is a minimum amount, but I do have some questions about the prescriptiveness. It is not a criticism of Senator Hanson-Young, but it is a concern about how it will work in a practical sense.</p><p>I ask the parliamentary secretary for water, Senator Farrell: what does the government say are the targets for salinity in the lower reaches of the Murray, because of course it is South Australia that is more vulnerable and we know that in the last drought salinity levels were a real issue? For instance, what does it say about targets in respect of salinity in the Lower Lakes? I say, parenthetically, that we still have hypersalinity in the Coorong, which is a real issue, and I will get to that in a moment.</p><p>My questions are, in order: firstly, what are the targets of the authority and of the government in relation to salinity in the lower reaches of the Murray, particularly below lock 1 and in the Lower Lakes? Secondly, what steps have been taken to address the issues of hypersalinity in the Coorong? There has been much talk about engineering works and further flushing to reduce the levels of hypersalinity in the Coorong. What steps are being taken in respect of that? Thirdly, if there is a minimum of 450 gigalitres via the mechanisms of this bill, what effect will that have on salinity levels in the lower reaches of the Murray, particularly below lock 1? And what modelling has been done by the government?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I thank Senator Xenophon for his question. The questions you have asked are principally set out in schedule 5 of the Basin Plan. I will read those out to you for the record:</p><p class="italic">(2)   The outcomes that will be pursued are:</p><p class="italic">(a)   further reducing salinity levels in the Coorong and Lower Lakes so that improved water quality contributes to the health of macroinvertebrates, fish and plants that form important parts of the food chain, for example:</p><p class="italic">  (i)   maximum average daily salinity in the Coorong South Lagoon is less than 100 grams per litre; and</p><p class="italic">  (ii)   maximum average daily salinity in the Coorong North Lagoon is less than 50 grams per litre; and</p><p class="italic">  (iii)   average daily salinity in Lake Alexandrina is less than 1000EC for 95% of years and 1500EC all of the time;</p><p class="italic">(b)   keeping water levels in the Lower Lakes above 0.4 metres AHD for 95% of the time and above 0.0 metres AHD at all times to help maintain flows to the Coorong, prevent acidification, prevent acid drainage and prevent riverbank collapse below Lock 1;</p><p class="italic">(c)   ensuring the mouth of the River Murray is open without the need for dredging in at least 95% of years, with flows every year through the Murray Mouth Barrages;</p><p class="italic">(d)   exporting 2 million tonnes per year of salt from the Murray-Darling Basin as a long-term average;</p><p class="italic">(e)   increasing flows through the barrages to the Coorong and supporting more years where critical fish migrations can occur;</p><p class="italic">(f)   in conjunction with removing or easing constraints, providing opportunities for environmental watering of an additional 35,000 ha of floodplain in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, improving the health of forests and fish and bird habitat, improving the connection to the river, and replenishing groundwater; and</p><p class="italic">(g)   achieving enhanced in-stream outcomes and improved connections with low to middle level floodplain and habitats adjacent to rivers in the southern Murray-Darling Basin.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|