|
senate vote 2013-02-06#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-31 12:21:31
|
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 - Timeframe
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (7) and (10) to (16) on sheet 7314 together:</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 37), at the end of section 86AA, add:</p>- The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-02-06.95.1 Greens amendment] moved by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
- Senator Hanson-Young explains that this amendment "go[es] to the time frame of this piece of legislation and the required timing of when the extra water—450 gigalitres—is to be returned."[1] These amendments will bring forward the due date from 2024 to 2019.
- Background to the bill
- The bill[2] 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.[3] The projects will include those that increase the available environmental water in the MDB by 450 Gigalitres.
- References
- * [1] See the rest of Senator Hanson-Young's contribution and related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-06.6.1 here]. The amendment is referred to as the Greens amendments (7) and (10) to (16) on sheet 7314 and the relevant debate began at 12:37 pm.
- * [2] 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].
- * [3] 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">(4) To achieve the object of this Part, the authority must propose an adjustment under section 23A to increase the volume of the Basin water resources available for environmental use by at least 450 gigalitres with the water to be secured by 2019.</p><p class="italic">(5) The Authority must propose the adjustment by 31 December 2016.</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16) (cell at table item 1, column 3), omit "$15,000,000.00", substitute "$187,000,000.00".</p><p class="italic">(11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16) (cell at table item 2, column 3), omit "$40,000,000.00", substitute "$212,000,000.00".</p><p class="italic">(12) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16) (cell at table item 3, column 3), omit "$110,000,000.00", substitute "$282,000,000.00".</p><p class="italic">(13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16) (cell at table item 4, column 3), omit "$430,000,000.00", substitute "$602,000,000.00".</p><p class="italic">(14) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16) (cell at table item 5, column 3), omit "$320,000,000.00", substitute "$492,000,000.00".</p><p class="italic">(15) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16) (table items 6 to 10), omit the table items.</p><p class="italic">(16) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 16), at the end of section 86AG, add:</p><p class="italic">     Note: Any amounts standing to the credit of the Water for the Environment Special Account at the end of a financial year remain available to be debited during subsequent financial years for the purposes mentioned in section 86AD.</p><p>These amendments in particular go to the time frame of this piece of legislation and the required timing of when the extra water—450 gigalitres—is to be returned. We know, of course, that the rest of the plan has to be in place by 2019, but the disappointing and concerning aspect of this legislation is that this extra 450 gigalitres is not required to be returned to the environment until 2024. That is 11 years from now. If we have all agreed that we know the best available science says 3,200 gigalitres is the absolute bare minimum—it is not even enough, much of the scientific evidence says—why on earth would we want to wait and blow out that time frame to 2024? South Australia is not going to be able to handle waiting that long in order to replenish our Lower Lakes and the Coorong and to keep Adelaide's drinking water healthy.</p><p>Of course, climate scientists are telling us already to prepare to go back into drought over the next couple of years. We are going to be back in a drying period long before 2019 and long, long before 2024. We do not have time to waste. We have been debating about the management of the Murray-Darling Basin for decades, since Federation. We now have a plan in place, albeit with the weaknesses and the problems that it has. At the very least, we should stick by the time frame that all sides in this chamber had originally agreed on back in 2008.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I just indicate that the government does not support this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>For reasons that I have already pointed out in relation to the first of the Greens amendments, we will not be supporting it. I add to that that the predictions about drying out may or may not be correct, but I would never assert that they are fact. The last time I heard that was when Professor Tim Flannery told us the storages in South-East Queensland would never fill again, and since he said that we have had flood after flood after flood.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendments (7) and (10) to (16) on sheet 7314 be agreed to.</p>
|