Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7317 standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 4), after item 7, insert:

7A After subsection 22(2)

(2A) In setting a long-term average sustainable diversion limit in relation to a water resource plan area for the purposes of item 6 of the table in subsection (1), the Authority must consider the water efficiency of relevant infrastructure in the water resource plan area before 2007.

(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (after line 8), after paragraph 23A(2)(b), insert:

(ba) a requirement for the Authority not to propose an adjustment under paragraph (1)(a) in relation to a particular water resource plan area, or an adjustment under paragraph (1)(b) as a result of that adjustment, without considering the water efficiency of relevant infrastructure in the water resource plan area before 2007; and

I have just spoken in relation to this matter so I will just specify what these amendments are about. The first amendment amends the Water Act 2007 to insert a new requirement into section 22. This new requirement provides that when setting sustainable diversion limits for water resource plan areas under the bill, the authority must consider the water efficiency of relevant infrastructure in that area before 2007. The intention of this amendment is to ensure that the relevant water efficiencies for each area in the basin are taken into account when the authority creates SDLs.

There are areas of the basin that have spent many years increasing their own water efficiency before the grants in recent years—that $5.8 billion fund—so that irrigators could make the most out of their decreasing water entitlements. As a result, these areas are already so water-efficient that there is quite literally not a drop to spare. They are not able to take advantage of the current government infrastructure funds as they are already too efficient under the current guidelines and criteria. This amendment reinforces the idea that the most practical and sustainable way to maximise returns to the basin is to focus on areas where efficiencies can be increased and, in turn, less water taken from the basin.

The amendment also looks at the efficiency of the area before 2007, which marked the start of significant government grants to improve efficiency in other areas. This cut-off date will ensure that the areas with a long history of efficiency are recognised, whether they are in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland.

The second amendment seeks to amend that part of the bill that relates to considering the water efficiency of relevant infrastructure in a particular water resource plan area when proposing an adjustment to an SDL. So the rationale behind this amendment is the same as the rationale for the original amendment, although this relates in a sense prospectively to an SDL. Again, the aim of this amendment is to ensure that SDL adjustments are made where there are efficiencies to be gained rather than in areas that are already operating at maximum efficiency.

This amendment also looks at the efficiency of the area before 2007 to, again, address the issue of government grants to improve efficiency that were announced at that time as part of the Howard government's plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. These efficiencies must be recognised so that adjustments to the SDLs can be made where those adjustments can be achieved so that areas already operating at peak efficiency are not penalised under the SDL system.

Currently, the premise of the Basin Plan seems to be that all areas are equally inefficient and that the entire system can be improved. This is clearly not correct, and continuing on this path will mean that many irrigators who have simply tried to do the right thing and survive with what water allocations they have will be penalised. The authority and its associated legislation must recognise the varying efficiencies in the basin and what this means for the real application of theories, such as the SDLs. If they do not, then that means that the plan will be skewed against those who have done the right thing in the past. When I asked the authority about this issue during Senate estimates, they glibly said, 'Every area says they are water efficient.' Well, this allows them to consider that in a way that is robust, independent and, in a sense, auditable. It is important that there be a system to consider this. These amendments require consideration of prior water efficiency methods, and I commend these amendments to my colleagues.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does acknowledge the work of Senator Xenophon in this area. Unfortunately, we have not found favour with the amendments in part for a couple of the reasons he described himself. The government, however, does believe it is already achieving the intent of these amendments through proposing that the downstream component of the sustainable diversion limit in the basin plan be apportioned between the states. This approach was outlined in Minister Burke's suggestion to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on 1 November 2012.

The government has announced funding for two major new programs in South Australia. There is a funding program of $180 million for the River Murray improvement program to help improve irrigation efficiency in South Australia and yield 36 gigalitres of savings towards bridging the gap. The second is a further $85 million for the industry futures and regional development research program in South Australia, which is commonly known as SA industry futures, to support industry development and structural adjustment activities in SA Murray.

The government wants to deliver certainty for the environment, communities and irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin and is seeking to progress the bill without change to deliver that certainty. For those reasons, the government will not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Xenophon.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With due respect for the work of Senator Xenophon in understanding the issues that he brings to light, it is our belief that in the competencies for some of these assessments being placed on the MDBA that the government should certainly consider the water efficiency of various infrastructure before making decisions on water resource plans, but this was not the intended role of the MDBA. The MDBA has been tasked with establishing how much water is needed for the environment, not how the water is to be recovered. The government department and the appropriate bodies have the information about the efficiency of water infrastructure in different parts of the Basin and it should be left to them to inform these decisions.

We lobbied and negotiated to have ministerial discretion placed back in this bill—and we attained that. As such, it gives us greater confidence about how some of the issues that Senator Xenophon brought to our attention will be addressed. We also note the investments that will be made by the plan in its current form in bridging the gap. We think that greater attention should be applied to making sure that that money is efficiently spent. We have had discussions thus far—brought up by my colleague Senator Birmingham—about the money that seems to be disappearing out of the funds towards administration and not actually delivering outcomes, further loading up the MDBA with assessments. Once more, with an understanding of Senator Xenophon's role—and we respect that role—the coalition, in this instance, will not be supporting these amendments.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to offer my support for the amendments put forward by Senator Xenophon. The points made around the previous work that has been done in South Australia are really important. Ensuring that we can have that understanding, for all the arguments outlined by Senator Xenophon about the previous level of water efficiency, is absolutely crucial. The Greens will be supporting Senator Xenophon's amendments.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister mentioned the $180 million program and another $85 million to support industry development for South Australia. I think this is part of the Water Industry Alliance project and I commend the work of those in the Water Industry Alliance—people such as Gavin McMahon, Ben Haslett and, I dare say, Chris Byrne and many others—who worked very hard on this. My question to the minister is: have the criteria for that program been determined yet? There is a real fear that they will not be fair criteria, that South Australians will have the same problems they have had previously because of the high levels of efficiency they have already achieved. My second question is: what does this actually mean in the scope of the recovery sought from the southern connected basin? From memory, it is in the order of 971 gigalitres, and I will be corrected by the minister if that is wrong. Will some of that be sought in addition to the 36 gigalitres that Minister Ludwig has referred to?

In summary, the issues are: what are the criteria for this $180 million fund and, indeed, for the further $85 million? Have they been finalised at this stage or, if not, when will they be finalised? What consultation will there be? And in relation to further cuts in South Australia, I note that in some areas such as the Central Irrigation Trust their efficiency levels are at 97 or 99 per cent in terms of water delivery and water efficiency measures. Will South Australians be subject to further cuts to achieve that 971-gigalitre target? Those are the fundamental issues I have in relation to this. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Senator Hanson-Young and the Australian Greens for their support for these amendments.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of the first question, on the $180 million, the work is still being undertaken between South Australia and the Commonwealth. As to when it will be available, as usual these are matters for Minister Burke to announce, I would expect as soon as practicable. In terms of stakeholder consultation, that is again a matter between the South Australian government and the Commonwealth government to determine. On the second question, I am advised that we do not have the figures on the amount of the apportionment, but I can take that on notice and provide that when it is available.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am concerned that the figures for the apportionment are not available. I would have thought it would be of crucial interest to all the basin states, of crucial interest at a national level and of particular interest in my home state of South Australia. I would have thought that level of apportionment would be a key issue. I appreciate the dialogue I have had with both the government and the opposition in relation to this and I appreciate the time that I had earlier today with Minister Burke. I understand what the government have said about their approach to dealing with this, but when will the apportionment figures be announced, firstly, and where does that leave issues of the 971 gigalitres being sought from the southern connected basin? Is that still the figure being sought in terms of water recovery from the southern connected basin?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps the easiest way to explain this is if you look at chapter 6, 'Apportionment of the shared SDL surface water reductions', it says 'in South Australia 8.5 per cent of the total' and 82.8 gigalitres of the 971 gigalitres per annum is that. To facilitate the apportionment it will come out of the 36 gigalitres. I wonder if that provides some assistance. As I said, if that does not answer your question then you might want to rephrase it and I will take it on notice.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that the minister is genuinely trying to be helpful in relation to this, as are the departmental officers, but does that mean 82.8 gigalitres will be taken out of the state of South Australia's allocation and then you subtract 36 gigalitres? I am just trying to get a fix on how that will operate. Will that fulfil the 971 gigalitres figure that has been referred to by the minister? Insofar as the minister is not able to answer this further, will the minister undertake to provide an answer to that question on the record, so that it is a matter of unambiguous public record, and there is some clarity with respect to this?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you work through the figures, of the 82, 36 will come off that. There is—I will use rough language—about 40 still there, but the figures mean that there has probably also been some savings. Some of the 40 has already been recovered, so that will lower that down again, but they have not got the precise figure as to what that balance would be and I am certainly not going to take an opportunity to guess it tonight. As I said, when they settle those figures I am sure they will publish them and provide them to the Senate.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally in relation to this, could I have an undertaking from the minister that those figures will be published and provided to the Senate. I ask that a copy be provided to my office and, of course, to my colleagues in relation to this matter, because obviously it is a critical issue in terms of the actual figures involved. Unless any of my colleagues seek to make a contribution to this, I think I have taken it as far as I can. I have heard from the relevant parties in relation to this, but I still have a grave concern that those regions in the river system that have already been historically much more water efficient than other regions—and I am not criticising those regions that have had open channels for a whole range of reasons but that are now being assisted with the water efficiency infrastructure fund—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Billions of dollars.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Billions of dollars, Senator Hanson-Young says—$5.8 billion, I believe. My fear—and I hope that these fears will not come to fruition, in a sense—is that, come the next drought or the next water crisis, it will be South Australia that will be disproportionately affected and disproportionately hurt by this. That concerns me. All I am asking for is some fairness and equity, and I am simply seeking in these amendments to ensure that the authority considers these issues of past efficiencies prior to 2007, when the Water Act was passed, and to ensure that there is some fairness and equity in the mechanisms in determining what cuts are to be made. So that is what I am concerned about. I understand the position of both the government and the opposition, but I think these are matters that need to be raised, that need to be talked about and that need to be on the public record. I hope I am proved wrong in years to come, but I fear that under the current plan and the current structure there will be some undue prejudice to the people of South Australia.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated, I am advised that there is no difficulty with publishing the figures and providing them to where they can be found, or alternatively to your office. There is no secret there. As soon as they are available, they can be distributed. Can I say that I do not quite share your pessimism in this area. I think the opportunity is here for a long-term average sustainable diversion limit adjustment within this bill to provide an opportunity and continue to provide agricultural outcomes. I am speaking as agriculture minister.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The impact on South Australia may well be ameliorated as a result of the matters raised by the minister. This amendment sought to ensure a level of certainty—a level of guarantee, if you like—that issues of equity and fairness are considered. I guess it will depend on how the $180 million fund will be dealt with and whether it will be fairly distributed in South Australia. I guess it will also depend on what role there will be between governments in terms of water savings and seeking to reduce the impact on those already highly efficient irrigators in order to ensure that sufficient water flows down the river system.

So it is a vexed issue. It seems that what is being proposed is better than the status quo, but that does not necessarily mean a good outcome for South Australia. From my point of view, the option of doing nothing is not a tenable one, but I am hoping that what the minister has outlined, and indeed the sentiments expressed by Senator Joyce, will mean that South Australia will not be unduly disadvantaged. But that is something that I and, I am sure, many of my colleagues will be particular vigilant about.

This bill would have been improved with the amendments I have suggested. I will be seeking to divide in relation to these amendments so that it is a matter of record, but I believe that we need to be particularly vigilant to ensure that South Australia is not unduly disadvantaged as a result of the overall plan and as a result of these adjustments being proposed in the SDL.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Xenophon on sheet 7317 be agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (2) relating to ground water on sheet 7310:

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 23), after item 9, insert:

9A After subsection 22(9)

  Insert:

(9A) The Basin Plan must not allow any increase to ground water extraction unless:

  (a) the proposed ground water extraction has been assessed using a regional scale, multi-layer, transient groundwater flow model that is linked to existing surface water models and demonstrates the impact of the proposed ground water extraction on:

     (i) surface water systems and flows; and

     (ii) ground water dependent ecosystems; and

     (iii) the long-term sustainability of the aquifer; and

  (b) the assessment takes into account the cumulative impact of all existing ground water extractions and the proposed ground water extraction; and

  (c) if the proposed ground water extraction will cause a reduction in surface water—the quantity of ground water to be extracted will be offset through the purchase, by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, of water rights to an equivalent quantity of surface water.

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 18), at the end of subsection 23A(2), add:

; and (e) a requirement for the Authority not to propose an adjustment under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) without:

  (i) undertaking modelling of the environmental impacts of the proposed adjustment using an integrated water model that takes into account the best available science including the most recent knowledge about climate change, ground water and the environmental water requirements of key environmental assets and key ecosystem functions of the water resource; and

  (ii) publicly releasing the modelling along with a plain language assessment of the environmental outcomes modelled, including in relation to ground water and the environmental water requirements of key environmental assets and key ecosystem functions of the water resource.

(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 29 to 33), omit subsection 23A(4), substitute:

   Limit on proposed adjustments

(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.

(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 9 (after line 30), after subsection 23B(6), insert:

(6A) The Minister must not adopt the amendment unless the Minister is satisfied that, if the amendment is made:

  (a) the long-term average sustainable diversion limit will continue to reflect an environmentally sustainable level of take; and

  (b) Australia's international obligations under the Ramsar Convention will be upheld; and

  (c) the long-term average sustainable diversion limit will maintain or improve the following environmental outcomes:

     (i) in relation to average daily salinity levels for Lake Alexandrina—less than 1500EC at all times and less than 1000EC for 95% of the time;

     (ii) in relation to average daily salinity levels for Coorong, South Lagoon—must not exceed 100 grams per litre in any 2 consecutive years and must remain less than 100 grams per litre for 96% of the time;

     (iii) in relation to barrage flows—greater than 2000 gigalitres per year on a 3 year rolling basis, with a minimum of 650 gigalitres per year for 95% of years, greater than 600 gigalitres in any 2 year period and greater than zero gigalitres in all years;

     (iv) in relation to the mouth of the River Murray—the mouth to be open to an average annual depth of 1 metre or more for at least 95% of years and to an average annual depth of 0.7 metres or more for at least 95% of years;

     (v) the environmental outcomes met under an integrated, Basin-wide, fit for purpose model run based on the levels of extraction contained in the BP-3200-RC model run and the 112 hydrologic indicator targets.

This amendment is very important to ensure that, whatever the details are of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan when it is tabled in this place next week by the minister, we do not see just a grab-all for the allowed increased extraction of groundwater without the knowledge of the impact that that groundwater—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senators, if you wish to remain in the chamber please do so, but quietly; otherwise, please exit the chamber quietly.

The purpose of this amendment is to adhere to a precautionary principle which would require an appropriate review to be undertaken to ensure that there cannot be an increase in groundwater extraction without the full knowledge of the impact that that is going to have on the surface water, the connectivity issues of recharge rates and the impact on ecologies drawing on the groundwater. It would look at the proposed extraction in the light of all other existing groundwater extractions and if the proposed extraction reduces surface water it would require the Commonwealth to ensure that they buy back the equivalent amount. This is important because we know that there is going to be a level set in the basin plan of 2,750 gigalitres. Yet there is also an allowance for an increase in groundwater extraction, to 1,700 gigalitres. When you add them together you find that there is a much smaller amount of water that is going to be returned to the river. And no-one knows quite what the direct connectivity and impact of the increase of groundwater extraction is going to have on the surface water.

The CSIRO has said that this is of concern. We know that the National Water Commission has said that it is a concern and that unless otherwise established it should be assumed that all surface and groundwater systems are connected and that the eventual impact of groundwater pumping on surface water flow may be as high as 100 per cent. The Commonwealth's own National Water Commission suggests that it could be as high as 100 per cent, so if we allowed a return to the environment of 2,750 gigalitres, yet at exactly the same time we allowed an increased extraction rate of groundwater of up to 1,700 gigalitres, it would not leave much water, at the end of the day, to be given back to the river.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority have not looked at this properly. They have ignored the advice of the National Water Commission. Indeed, looking at some of the previous positions taken by Mr Burke, they have even been ignoring his advice in relation to his previous concerns about the impact of groundwater extraction in areas such as Queensland and the expansion of coal-seam gas development there. Last year the minister required that Queensland had to develop a regional-scale, multilayer transient groundwater flow model of the cumulative effects of multiple CSG development. This is the minister's own precedent, that you cannot just pump gigalitre after gigalitre after gigalitre of water out of the watertable in groundwater extraction without understanding the impact that that is going to have as to the connectivity of surface water and other systems. This is what this amendment is saying: unless we know what the impact is going to be and unless we can account for the impact that it will have on the overall return rate to the environment, then we should not be able to do it. It is simply taking a precautionary principle.

At a time when we have spent decades, not just in this place but across states, debating the overallocation of water resources in terms of the traditional surface water in the Murray-Darling Basin, one would imagine that we would not want to repeat the bad old mistakes all over again. We are now about to spend billions upon billions of dollars having to buy back water entitlements because of overallocation of surface water. We should not be looking back in 50, 60 or 70 years time and seeing that this parliament did not take today the precautionary principle into account and ensure that we kept track of the allocations of groundwater extraction. We do not want to have to be here all over again having to buy back groundwater allocations because they are having such a significant impact on the overall level of water throughout the Murray-Darling Basin system. As I have already mentioned, the National Water Commission has already said that until otherwise proven we should be assuming that there is a 100 per cent relationship between groundwater and surface water—and that is what this amendment goes to.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not accept the amendment moved by the Greens. Can I then simply say that the proposed amendment places additional requirements on the authority by determining that the level of take must be done in a particular way. It is not the way that we are suggesting in the bill as to how it would operate. The way the Basin Plan would operate is this. When made, it will set an environmentally sustainable level of take. The bill requires, at section 23A(3)(b), that the sustainable diversion limit after it is adjusted reflect an environmentally sustainable level of take. That is, of course, the way the bill would operate and on that basis we do not see the need for this amendment. The way it particularly specifies that should be determined is not consistent with the operation of the bill.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister what is the government's response to the National Water Commission's position and advice that unless otherwise established it should be assumed that all surface and groundwater systems are connected and therefore to the negative impact that that is going to have on the overall figure of water to be returned to the river under the plan?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again I think there is a missed point here. The Basin Plan will address that, not the commission.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect, Mr Chairman, the minister did not respond to my question. I am asking: what is the government's response to that advice given to the government by the National Water Commission? Is the minister suggesting that the National Water Commission is incorrect?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will say it for the last time, hopefully. The Basin Plan sets the precautionary approach and the Basin Plan will deal with the matter. It is not a matter of setting one body against another.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But what is your response to their advice?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the Basin Plan will deal with it.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take it that the government cannot give a response to that advice. It is not about what the authority thinks. I am asking what the government's response is to that advice. Are they suggesting that that advice is wrong?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say I believe that the issue that Senator Hanson-Young is alluding to is slightly more complicated than the way she is presenting it in that it is definitely not pertinent to this bill. If anything, the ability within this bill for a limit to allow five per cent up or down would in essence give the government or the minister of the day the capacity if this were an issue to be addressed. Because it is five per cent up or down, that gives a capacity of up to 710 gigalitres up or down and that in itself would give some room for movement if the issues that she was alluding to were correct. I think it is completely confusing the aspect of what belongs in here if we start dealing with that issue tonight.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect to Senator Joyce, this bill before us allows for the adjustment down or up of the water to be returned to the river as suggested by the authority based on a number of things. If the result of an increased groundwater extraction is negative, then that must be reflected in the authority's decision as to whether adjusting up or down is indeed a smart thing to do.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments on sheet 7310 moved by the Australian Greens be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [21:41]

(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Parry)

Senator Hanson-Young, do you still wish to move your next amendment (3) on sheet 7310?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, would you accommodate me in moving the last group, which would be amendments (1) and (5) together before I go on to the others?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is fine.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (5) on sheet 7310.

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 4(1)

(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 9 (after line 30), after subsection 23B(6), insert:

(6A) The Minister must not adopt the amendment unless the Minister is satisfied that, if the amendment is made:

  (a) the long-term average sustainable diversion limit will continue to reflect an environmentally sustainable level of take; and

  (b) Australia's international obligations under the Ramsar Convention will be upheld; and

  (c) the long-term average sustainable diversion limit will maintain or improve the following environmental outcomes:

     (i) in relation to average daily salinity levels for Lake Alexandrina—less than 1500EC at all times and less than 1000EC for 95% of the time;

     (ii) in relation to average daily salinity levels for Coorong, South Lagoon—must not exceed 100 grams per litre in any 2 consecutive years and must remain less than 100 grams per litre for 96% of the time;

     (iii) in relation to barrage flows—greater than 2000 gigalitres per year on a 3 year rolling basis, with a minimum of 650 gigalitres per year for 95% of years, greater than 600 gigalitres in any 2 year period and greater than zero gigalitres in all years;

     (iv) in relation to the mouth of the River Murray—the mouth to be open to an average annual depth of 1 metre or more for at least 95% of years and to an average annual depth of 0.7 metres or more for at least 95% of years;

     (v) the environmental outcomes met under an integrated, Basin-wide, fit for purpose model run based on the levels of extraction contained in the BP-3200-RC model run and the 112 hydrologic indicator targets.

These amendments go right to the heart of what we need to be doing in setting a proper benchmark from which any adjustment to the plan must be measured. The amendments list a number of items that are crucial to ensuring that the Murray-Darling Basin plan continues to achieve the outcomes that it sets out.

This amendment outlines a number of key targets—trigger points or safety nets—to ensure that we set a proper benchmark. If there is a desire to adjust the Basin Plan at any stage, we will always know what it is that we are measuring it against: salinity levels in the Lower Lakes—Lake Alexandrina; salinity levels in the Coorong and the southern lagoon; and ensuring that the 112 target indicators that we used during the modelling by the authority of the 3,200 megalitre relaxed constraints run, which was the most recent model that the authority undertook, are met.

The last thing we want to do is allow for an adjustment up or down of the Basin Plan in a way that means we are not meeting the outcomes we set out to achieve at the beginning. By 2016 when there is a review and an ability to ascertain whether the plan can be adjusted, we need to make sure we understand what the benchmarks are. This is about putting those benchmarks, putting those agreed achievement points, into the legislation so that everybody knows what the game is and everybody understands what the aim of the plan is meant to be. As I mentioned, these targets are important specifically for my home state of South Australia, at the bottom of the system. We know, historically, that that region feels the brunt of a reduction in water first just because it is at the end of the system. Those salinity targets in places like Lake Alexandrina and the Coorong are absolutely crucial, but the main point of these amendments is that they identify environmental targets throughout the entire basin. It is not just about South Australia; this also includes targets in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—right throughout the basin. They are targets that the authority itself has already identified as important. These are important things we have to achieve if we are to meet the overall objectives of the Water Act, which of course is to restore to health and retain the health of the Murray-Darling Basin system and protect our Ramsar listed icon sites.

This amendment lays down those really crucial safety nets. If we do not have these things in place, there are no guarantees that in two, four, five or 10 years time any of the things we have set out to achieve today will be met. We need to make sure that any adjustment to the levels of water to be returned to the river measure up to our ultimate aim, and that is to restore, protect and sustain those crucial environmental targets so that communities can continue to rely on a healthy Murray, so that communities down the end of the system, in my home state of South Australia, know that they will not just have an adjustment brought to this place in parliament and, regardless of who is in government at the time, it can just be ticked off without any understanding of the direct impact on the environment. As we know, in a drying climate, in a time of climate change, the needs of those icon sites and how these targets are being met and the ability to meet them will change. Setting down these needs and targets as solid benchmarks now will ensure that even though our approach to them will need to be flexible and we may adapt the amount of water needed to meet them, meeting them is the crucial point. That is what these amendments set out to ensure.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to amendments (1) and (5) but particularly (5), again it does appear that the Greens are making a mistake. It is a very prescriptive clause and the detail of that will be in the Basin Plan. That is where it should lie and that is the structure of this legislation. The Basin Plan will contain, as it does now, a range of indicia, numbers, to achieve what can effectively be called environmentally sustainable levels of take. You cannot use the framework legislation to effectively commit now, because the Basin Plan will highlight those.

The bill already requires—this is the important part—that the environmentally sustainable level of take be maintained. Section 23A(3)(b) says that, and, as it is an amendment to the Water Act, Australia's international obligations—which is also covered I think in the Greens amendment (5)—are already covered under the objects of the act, in section 3(b). On that basis the government will not be supporting the amendments.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had some sympathy for the other amendments although we believed they were inappropriate, but these amendments have some serious issues. Salinity levels in the Coorong are a real problem, but a range of studies have shown that even with the flows we are having, with the floods, the salinity levels in certain corners have not changed. It comes down to whether there are other hydrological issues at play there, such as the drainage at the lower reaches of the Coorong and whether waters that have historically drained to the sea should be directed back into the Coorong, where they initially went. If we followed this through, we could pull down Dartmouth Dam and remove everything on the river but it would not necessarily fix the problem we are trying to address. We would never meet the targets that the Greens want.

Of course, when we get these direct levels of electrical conductivity, which is what EC stands for, we allow a trigger of events to happen all the way through the basin, where every town will come up with some environmental outcome that they desire. Griffith will say that they want a certain outcome and Dartmouth will say they want a certain outcome and Bourke will say they want an outcome—the result of that being that no water will get to South Australia, because every town will have its own call on a target prior to it getting there. It cannot be so particular for certain area because, of course, once we let (6A) of this this amendment (5), especially part (c), go through, then it stands to reason that every senator from every state will walk in here with their own grab bag of certain targets that they want, which will bring the whole plan unstuck. One of the major overarching purposes of this legislation is to bring about a better outcome for South Australia, but if we become belligerent and targeted then what we do is call basically any senator from every state in the basin to come up with their desires of their targets in their areas and the whole plan will fall over.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not labour the point too much longer but I do want to be able to respond to Senator Joyce, who has just exposed the fact that the coalition have no commitment to making sure that the plan that passes this place, as drafted currently, is actually going to be the plan that continues to exist, because these targets as outlined in this amendment are what is currently making up the government's legislation—their 450 legislation—and the requirement of the plan in relation to meeting the 3,200 gigalitres figure. So we have just exposed the fact that the coalition has absolutely no commitment to ensuring that this plan returns the water to the river in the future. Their whole strategy is to pass this plan, to then relegate it down and to make sure that none of these targets are actually met. Senator Joyce just stood here and said, 'If we let this through we will not possibly be able to do any of it.' These are exactly the things that the government is already trying to do—that the authority already has on the table. You either agree with them or you don't.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendments (5) and (1) on sheet 7310 be agreed to.

Debate interupted.

Progress reported.