Coalition Senators' Additional Comments
Background
1.1
Coalition Senators acknowledge and agree that there is insufficient
water within the Murray Darling Basin to meet the wants and demands of all
stakeholders. This necessitates both difficult decisions and some sacrifice.
We thank all of those who have made submissions and provided evidence to this
inquiry thus far, many of whom are directly impacted by the state of the
Basin. We are extremely mindful of the fact that, in addition to the
environmental threats evident throughout the Basin, the livelihoods of many
people and sustainability of many communities are not only threatened, but
potentially at stake.
1.2
The need to conduct this inquiry is regrettable. It is the direct
result of mismanagement of the finite resources within the Basin; the impact of
which has been dramatically escalated as a result of prolonged drought
throughout much of the Basin area.
1.3
The requirement to change the management of the water resources within
the Basin was recognised by the previous Coalition Government, when then
Minister for the Environment and Water, Malcolm Turnbull, sought to overturn a
century of precedence and seek a full referral of powers for management of the
system from the States and Territories to the Australian Government. We are
gravely concerned that continued politics and parochialism, especially from the
Victorian Government, have delayed and undermined this effort. This has been
especially unfortunate given the continued deterioration in climatic conditions,
especially water inflows across the Basin, since former Minister Turnbull’s
announcement in January 2007.
1.4
Coalition Senators recognise that the majority report broadly reflects
the range of evidence provided to the Committee and understand that many issues
relating to the long term sustainable management of the system will be explored
in greater depth in the report to the second term of reference, due by 4 December 2008. However, we disagree with some of the conclusions drawn in this initial
report and believe the situation confronting the entire system demands a
clarity in purpose, robustness of process and overriding sense of urgency, each
of which has been lacking in the Government's approach thus far.
Immediate requirements of the Lower Lakes
1.5
Since the referral of this reference by the Senate on 27 August 2008, thankfully the prognosis for the Lower Lakes has improved marginally. This has
predominantly been a result of increased rainfall in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges,
which has seen increased flows into Lake Alexandrina from the Finniss River and
Currency Creek, and climatic conditions resulting in lower rates of evaporation
from the lakes.
1.6
As a result of these improved conditions, lower freshwater inflows are
now required to keep the lakes above the estimated water level required to
manage the risk of acidification. In a response to questions from the
Committee circulated on 1 October 2008, the Murray Darling Basin Commission
(MDBC) stated that:
Based on modelling using the worst case scenario (highest
evaporation, lowest inflow), 30 GL in addition to the 350 GL dilution flow
would be enough to keep the lakes above minus 1.0 m AHD (the water level
trigger to manage the acidification risk) until winter 2009.
1.7
The 350 GL of dilution flows, which are allocated to ensure salinity is
kept at acceptable levels at major urban pump off-takes, appear relatively
secure. In the same series of responses the MDBC indicated that as "at 15 September 2008 South Australia was entitled to receive an annual entitlement of 1030 GL
plus a further 57 GL of trade adjustment". Whilst noting that the South
Australian Government "decides how to allocate that water within South
Australia" the MDBC stated that it understands the South Australian
Government "has determined that it will plan to have 350 GL flow past Wellington
to the Lower Lakes". Coalition Senators expect the South Australian
Government to honour this commitment.
1.8
According to the MDBC, based on worst case evaporation, local tributary
inflow and rainfall scenarios, this leaves a shortfall of an estimated 30 GL.
This evidence is consistent with responses to questions provided by the
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts circulated on 2 October 2008, which stated:
Based on 'worst case' assumptions, latest water allocation
figures, and the current assumed acidification management trigger levels, we
understand the Lower Lakes will have a shortfall of between 10 and 50 GL by
next March. A very small improvement from these worse case assumptions will
mean that water levels in the Lower Lakes will remain above the current
management trigger level through the 2009 winter months.
1.9
Having come so close to the brink in reaching levels that would have
precipitated the making of hard decisions earlier this year, the Lakes have
been granted a short-term reprieve by Mother Nature. Coalition Senators
acknowledge that, even if worst case scenarios are not realised over the next 9
months or the additional 30 GL of water are found to deal with to such scenarios,
this is still only a short term reprieve. However, it is a reprieve
governments must use. Absent long term solutions, another season of record low
inflows will likely force the making of hard decisions.
1.10
However, Coalition Senators believe that it is far preferable to utilise
this window of time to maximise the chances of recovery or to ensure any
management decisions are fully informed. This must include the full range of
available options, and their inferred and potential consequences. It is unacceptable
to make potentially damaging decisions without full consideration of all
long-term management approaches that would maximise benefits to river
communities, the environment and the economy.
1.11
While finding even 30 GL of water for the Lower Lakes is not an easy
task, Coalition Senators believe the Australian and South Australian
Governments must give an assurance that, if possible, it will be delivered.
Coalition Senators note the majority report leaves open the possibility of
delivering this amount of water by slightly lowering the weir pool levels,
possibly in combination with some temporary addition of seawater through a
'shandying' effect.[1]
Measures such as these, which have become feasible due to the smaller
quantities of water now required to stave off disaster, should be pursued ahead
of other options that would result in significant transmission losses or the
potential imposition of further pain on irrigation communities throughout the
Basin.
1.12
Evidence was given by stakeholders who felt that they had not, prior to
this inquiry, been provided with an opportunity to explain their views as to
options to save the Lower Lakes and Coorong. During the course of the inquiry,
evidence was given about options varying from and/or additional to those options
outlined to the Committee in the submission from the federal Department of
Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts. Coalition Senators are concerned at
the lack of engagement with all stakeholders in the Basin, which appears to
have resulted in a failure to explore all possible management options.
Recommendation 1
1.13
That the government immediately commence:
- re-considering and re-assessing the options available, including
additional and variant options the subject of evidence to the Committee; and
- consulting extensively with stakeholders, including those who
have provided submissions to this inquiry, as an inherent part of this process.
Recommendation 2
1.14
That the Australian and South Australian Governments commit to
delivering, at least until winter 2009, the water required to maintain the
Lower Lakes above levels that would otherwise trigger the risk of
acidification.
Recommendation 3
1.15
Should worst case assumptions appear imminent, so that between 10 and 50
GL over and above the already budgeted 350 GL 'dilution flows' are required to
maintain the level of the Lower Lakes, then governments should ensure such
water should be sourced through the lowering of weir pool levels, temporary
addition of minimal seawater as part of a 'shandying' process or other measures
that will not negatively impact on permanent plantings or irrigation
communities.
Immediate action for the Coorong
1.16
Evidence was given as to the environmental differences between the Lower
Lakes and the Coorong. Numerous experts expressed their opinions as to how
and why these different environments are therefore able to sustain different
solutions. This fact appears to have been in some part overlooked in options
considered by governments prior to this inquiry.
1.17
Increasing levels of salinity in the South Lagoon of the Coorong, now
reaching levels of hyper salinity that are reported at up to seven times the
salinity of seawater, threaten the unique environment of this region in ways
that are as serious as, but decidedly different from, the threat of acidification
in the Lower Lakes. Much public debate in recent times has centred on the
threats to the lakes from declining inflows, yet there is a clear concomitant
threat to the Coorong.
1.18
As with the lakes and the entire Basin system, the approach to the Coorong
can be considered in both short and long term contexts. In the longer term,
possible redirection of freshwater from the Upper South East Drainage Scheme[2]
could aid the sustainability of the Coorong, and should be further
investigated. In the shorter term, Coalition Senators found evidence regarding
the feasibility and benefits of removing hyper-saline water from the South
Lagoon of the Coorong and replacing it with sea water, as warranting urgent
investigation.
Recommendation 4
1.19
That government immediately investigate and, where appropriate,
implement the removal of hyper saline water from the South Lagoon of the
Coorong, enabling refreshment with sea water while further considering the
redirection of fresher waters from the Upper South East Drainage Scheme.
The Wellington Weir
1.20
Coalition Senators note and welcome evidence from South Australian Water
Minister Karlene Maywald that the South Australian Government now considers it
has until September 2009 to decide whether to proceed with its proposal to
build a weir near Wellington in South Australia. Climatic conditions that are
better than previously postulated scenarios have, again, provided some
breathing space in this regard. This space must be used wisely.
1.21
Assessment of the implications of the weir appear inadequate. With the
South Australian Government confirming that 'no regrets' preparatory work on
the construction of the weir are being undertaken,[3]
including the construction of access roads to the site, it seems inconceivable
that similar 'no regrets' environmental assessments have not commenced.
1.22
The option of building the weir and flooding the lakes with seawater has
been on the table for several years now, although assurances have repeatedly
been given that it will be a ‘last resort’ option.[4]
The purpose of a weir – for what and for whom – is unclear. A so-called ‘last
resort’ must not become a refuge for hasty decisions and tight timeframes,
meaning that alternatives to building a weir are overlooked and environmental
and other assessments are rushed, will only further aggravate understandable
public angst over the proposal.
1.23
There are many concerns expressed by experts and across the community at
large about the impact of such a weir. These include concerns about the impact
on the ecology of the lakes, the potential for salt build-up within the river
and concerns about the ongoing requirement for freshwater to maintain some
element of estuarine environment in the lakes. Ensuring broad public
understanding of the consequences of building a weir and confidence that there
are not unintended or unforeseen effects should be a priority for both the
Australian Government and, especially, the South Australian Government, if they
intend to continue to contemplate the weir.
1.24
Any decision to build the weir must be soundly evidence based, with all
consequences (both positive and negative) fully understood, and be made only if
and after all alternative approaches have been fully explored. Should
available science and appropriate planning for the future of the Basin indicate
that the lakes cannot be sustained as totally freshwater then all other
alternatives, such as the potential to 'decommission' Lake Albert, as countenanced
by Professor Mike Young[5]
and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists,[6]
should have been explored prior to any final decision on building the weir.
Recommendation 5
1.25
That, if governments intend to continue to contemplate the weir near Wellington:
- that
governments specify the purpose of building the weir.
- then all
appropriate environmental considerations and approvals, including assessment
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act, into construction of the
proposed weir be undertaken as soon as possible and be made publicly available.
- that no
decision be made to build the weir unless and until all alternatives to the
construction of the weir including alternative long term management models for
the Lower Lakes have been fully assessed and discounted in a transparent and
evidence based way.
The Goolwa & Lower Lakes Communities
1.26
Coalition Senators note the strong representations made from
organisations representing the tourism, boating and fishing industries,
especially in the communities around Goolwa, including the Alexandrina Council
and the Southern Alexandrina Business Association (SABA). While communities
throughout the Basin are suffering, we acknowledge the potential for a unique
solution to the problems facing the Goolwa community, which may not require a
'freshwater solution', as a community with a pool level that is "the only
one which is below sea level together with high salinity levels".[7]
Specifically, SABA calls for:
...the raising of the Goolwa pool to +0.3 m AHD and the
re-commissioning of the Goolwa Lock by Christmas 2008. Our suggestion is to
construct a temporary barrier at Laffin’s Point (Goolwa North) and to fill the
Goolwa pool with either sea or fresh water as appropriate. We are also calling
for the re-commissioning of the Goolwa Lock (associated with the Goolwa
Barrages) so as to restore communication between the Goolwa Channel and the
Coorong.[8]
1.27
Consideration must be given to this proposal from the Goolwa community,
which could both increase the pool level at Goolwa (assisting the local boating
and tourism industry) whilst also protecting Lake Alexandrina from the
increasing salinity in the Goolwa Channel, especially the estuarine
environments at the mouths of the River Finniss and Currency Creek.
1.28
In response to requests that were now made some months ago by the
Alexandrina Council and the Goolwa community, the South Australian Government
has been undertaking a feasibility study into this proposal, which Minister
Maywald indicated to the Committee was due to be completed as soon as possible.[9]
Like so many issues facing the Basin, Coalition Senators believe the assessment
of this proposal has taken far too long for a community in dire need of
assistance.
Recommendation 6
1.29
That the South Australian Government immediately complete and publicly
release the much anticipated feasibility study into the Laffins Point proposal.
Recommendation 7
1.30
That the Australian Government provide an immediate assistance package
of a minimum $50 million for Lower Lakes and Coorong communities to help
farmers, small businesses, tourism and community sectors to respond to the
crisis caused by the lack of water.
Water buybacks, infrastructure spending and future planning
1.31
Coalition Senators acknowledge the role for the voluntary acquisition of
water entitlements, as was originally planned and funded by the former
Coalition Government. Over many years State Governments have clearly issued
entitlements that exceed any reasonable expectation of available resources in
the basis. Given this gross mismanagement, and the likelihood that climatic
conditions will lead to further reductions in available water resources, buying
back entitlements must be part of the long term solution in the Basin.
1.32
However, water entitlements differ from water allocations and their
purchase will only be of benefit when water is actually allocated to those entitlements.
Shamefully, the Government appears to have exploited a general misunderstanding
of the difference between entitlements and allocations, allowing the community
to presume that increasing the pace of buying back entitlements will somehow
provide immediate relief to the Lower Lakes and Coorong.
1.33
The reality is very different and has been exposed in evidence to this
inquiry. The MDBC has reported that of 133 GL of entitlement purchased under
the Living Murray initiative, only 1.2 GL of water is likely to be available to
the environment this year. DEWHA figures reveal that of the buybacks announced
with much hype by the Prime Minister and Minister Wong this year, only 4.8 GL
of entitlements have actually been transferred into Commonwealth ownership,
against which just 443.7 ML of water is actually available this year.[10]
1.34
These buybacks, which with the recent purchase of Toorale Station
extended to property purchases, are proceeding with no plan or clear targets,
no apparent strategy or targeting to catchment areas and no adjustment support
for the communities they strip of income and viability. They have been rushed
for the sake of cheap headlines and it is little wonder they have generated so
much resentment and concern in irrigation communities throughout the system.
The Government must provide the evidence upon which it has based these
decisions, so that it can show they are the right decisions.
1.35
While the buying back of entitlements has been hastened, investment in
upgrading on-farm and off-farm irrigation infrastructure appears to have been
stalled or placed on the backburner pending deals with State Governments over
where funds should be allocated. Such infrastructure investment remains
amongst the best ways to save water, delivering increased flows to the
environment while helping to guarantee both future food security and the future
viability of regional communities.
1.36
Coalition Senators consider that buybacks, along with infrastructure
spending, must be part of a total, transparent package and plan. However, the
current random approaches to water buybacks are lacking in evidence or
strategy. Australians must be provided with confidence that the Government
actually has an immediate strategy for the management of the Basin, not just a
media strategy to last until the long-term Basin Plan is developed.
1.37
Important to any Minister's ability to manage the Basin, either in the
short or long term, is the referral of powers to the Commonwealth. Coalition
Senators are damning of the watering down of and backroom deals that have
undermined the intent of the plan announced by the former Coalition Government
in January 2007 for true, unimpeded management of the Basin by the Australian
Government in the national interest. Although these matters will be explored
further in the second stage of this inquiry, and in the assessment of the
recently introduced Water Amendment Bill 2008, we repeat our calls for
unconditional referral of powers by the States.
Recommendation 8
1.38
That the Government immediately develop and release an economic and
social impact statement and evidence of a strategy to guide water buybacks,
infrastructure spending and other measures to be undertaken so as to provide
certainty and transparency for all stakeholders in the system.
Recommendation 9
1.39
That the Government hasten both on-farm and off-farm infrastructure
spending where it delivers water savings and increased environmental flows
while enhancing both food security and the viability of regional communities.
Recommendation 10
1.40
That a full and unconditional referral of powers to the Australian
Government over management of the Basin be undertaken by all relevant state and
territory jurisdictions to deliver a river and basin system able to be governed
nationally, consistently, transparently and equitably.
Urban water supplies
Broken Hill & Menindee Lakes
1.41
Many witnesses suggested that water for the Lower Lakes be sourced by
releasing storages from the Menindee Lakes. Other evidence was provided about
the likely transmission losses and difficulties in releasing such water, as
well as some areas of environmental note around the Menindee Lakes, which are
explored in the majority report.
1.42
Clear evidence was provided as to the inefficiencies in supplying water
for Broken Hill. The committee was informed by both DEWHA [11]
and the New South Wales Department of Water and Energy[12]
that 20 GL was held in the Menindee Lakes to secure Broken Hill's water supply
for two years, against which managers need to allow for evaporation of 200 GL.
Recommendation 11
1.43
That the Federal and New South Wales Governments immediately assess new
ways to secure the water supply for Broken Hill and, where environmentally
appropriate, re-engineer the Menindee Lakes to reduce evaporative losses.
Adelaide
1.44
Coalition Senators also believe that further steps need to be made by
the South Australian Government to ensure that Adelaide becomes more
self-sufficient for its water needs. Minister Maywald’s following comments
made during questioning, are vague and, in the circumstances, unconvincing:
In years where there is lots of water around, we do not believe
that Adelaide should have to take that infrastructure that is already there in
place out of production. It is infrastructure that has a long life. If there
are years when we have high flows, South Australia should be able to use that
infrastructure. If we engineered a solution for the one in 100-year event so
that we never used the River Murray for the rest of the time, I think it would
be in fact over-engineering the solution for South Australia.[13]
1.45
Coalition Senators believe that self sufficiency of urban water supplies
should be an objective of all state governments and urge the South Australian
Government to strive towards this objective through increased efforts in areas
such as desalination, stormwater capture, water recycling and improved
efficiency.
Recommendation 12
1.46
That the Australian and South Australian Governments commit to self
sufficiency independent of the Murray for Adelaide as a key objective of their
water policy plans through increased efficiency in water usage and greater
efforts in areas such as stormwater capture, desalination and water recycling.
Melbourne and the Sugarloaf or
North-South Pipeline
1.47
Coalition Senators note that Minister Garrett approved construction of the
Sugarloaf or North-South Pipeline during September 2008, ignoring a request
from non-Government committee members that he delay so doing until the
reporting date for the first part of this inquiry. In so doing, the Minister
has deprived the Government of the opportunity to be informed by evidence
provided to this Committee during the inquiry.
1.48
As a result of that evidence, Coalition members consider that the
decision to build the pipeline is based upon politics, not upon evidence. It
is clearly part of a deal to get the Victorian Government to agree to even a
watered down version of national management of the Basin.
1.49
The decision to build the pipeline gives priority to the interests of Melbourne,
a city outside of the Basin area, over other communities, with no convincing
evidence as to why that should be so. Nonsensically, it increases the reliance
of one major city on the system, just at the time when other major cities,
notably Adelaide, are responding to pressure to decrease their reliance on the
system.
1.50
Even if cited water savings can be found, about which Coalition Senators
are very doubtful, to provide for the pumping of 75 to 110 GL to Melbourne, the
redistribution of this water from the Goulburn will clearly have a detrimental
impact on communities to the north, as well as flows into the Lower Lakes and
Coorong.
Recommendation 13
1.51
That construction of the North-South Pipeline to extract water for Melbourne
not proceed.
![Signature of Senator Mary Jo Fisher](/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/lowerlakes_coorong/report/d02_1_jpg.ashx)
Senator Mary Jo Fisher
![Signature of Senator Fiona Nash](/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/lowerlakes_coorong/report/d02_2_jpg.ashx)
Senator Fiona Nash
![Signature of Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan](/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/lowerlakes_coorong/report/d02_3_gif.ashx)
Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan
![Signature of Senator Simon Birmingham](/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/lowerlakes_coorong/report/d02_4_jpg.ashx)
Senator Simon Birmingham
![Signature of Senator Judith Adams](/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/lowerlakes_coorong/report/d02_5_jpg.ashx)
Senator Judith Adams
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page