Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I did note in my summing up speech that this was an issue raised both in the Senate report and also by Senator Siewert, in particular the issue of variability in averages. As I said then, and I will reiterate in a little more detail, throughout the act the term ‘long-term average sustainable diversion limit’ is used. This is intended to provide a useful metric for levels of diversion in various parts of the basin and for the basin as a whole. It does not, however, suggest or necessitate the management of basin water resources through averages, either in terms of planning or compliance. Preparation of sustainable diversion limits involves setting a sustainable extraction limit for the full range of expected seasonal variations anticipated for the planning period. The use of the term ‘average’ in the defined term ‘long-term average sustainable diversion limit’ simply reflects the fact that averages provide a useful metric for communicating a diversion limit, which will itself obviously be based on a more complex formula that does take into account natural variability.

In terms of planning, the act states that the long-term average sustainable diversion limits may be specified as a particular quantity of water per year, as a formula or other method that may be used to calculate a quantity of water per year or in any other way that the authority determines to be appropriate. Such flexibility has been given to the authority to enable it to develop specific arrangements for specific locations and circumstances. The complexity of water management in the Murray-Darling Basin surely provides such a scope. The provisions of the act already allow sophisticated and flexible diversion limit arrangements to be applied, including a share based arrangement, and in relation to particular water years and water availabilities for the basin as a whole, for particular water resources and for parts thereof.

In terms of compliance, the phrase ‘whether in relation to a particular water accounting period or over a longer period’, which is item 8 in section 22(1), emphasises that the compliance arrangements can specify compliance arrangements for specific water years, not just long-term average limits. So this is an important feature of the Water Act 2007 and makes it clear that compliance with the Basin Plan is not on the basis of averages.

I trust that deals with the issues that Senator Siewert raises. I also on this occasion share Senator Nash’s views about potential unintended consequences. In particular, the government is concerned with the omission of the definition which is contained in relation to item 2 section 50C of Senator Siewert’s amendment. We do not support these amendments.

Question negatived.