Budget 2009–10: Climate change, energy and the environment
Water
Bill McCormick and Louise Emmett
Five of the six 2009–10 budget measures related to water were
the result of agreements negotiated to facilitate the passage of the Nation
Building and Jobs Plan in February 2009—with the Greens the bioremediation and
revegetation trials, and with Senator Xenophon the accelerated water buy–backs
for the Murray–Darling Basin, national stormwater funding, local plans for a
future with less water and the small block irrigators exit grant package
expansion.
Driving reform in the Murray–Darling Basin
The funds from the Driving Reform in the Murray–Darling
Basin component of the Water for the Future package have been reallocated. This
budget measure transfers $185.3 million over eight years from the $12.9 billion
Water for the Future package in the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (DEWHA) to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority, along with $7.5 million
to the National Water Commission and $3.4 million to the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission, both over two years.[1]
This measure will enable these agencies to undertake new
responsibilities arising from amendments to the Water Act 2007 and the signing of the
Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform on 3 July 2008.[2]
The reallocation will involve a net decrease in funding to
the Water for the Future package over 2009–10 and 2010–11, providing
savings of $16.4 million.
Bioremediation and revegetation trials
The Greens negotiations resulted in $10 million in funding
in 2008–09 through 2010–11 for bioremediation and revegetation trials around Lake
Alexandrina and Lake Albert. This is intended to result in ecosystem stability
and resilience; as well as stabilise sand, soil and dust movement.[3]
Accelerated water buy–backs for the Murray–Darling Basin
The negotiations with Senator Xenophon resulted in the acceleration
of the Government’s program of buying back of water entitlements for return as
environment flows within the Murray–Darling Basin. A total of $500 million
that was to be spent in 2013–14 through 2015–16 will be brought forward four
years to 2009–10 through 2011–12, including $250 million in 2009–10.[4] Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources Mark Coulton was critical of
this proposal.
It is staggering that while Senator Wong continues to sit on
almost $6 billion that was allocated for water infrastructure by the Coalition
Government she has chosen to forge ahead with the misguided approach of buying
up water entitlements.
The Government has allocated an additional $250 million to
buy back water entitlements over the next three years, but it has failed to
mention the targets it has in terms of how much water they expect to purchase.
There is also a complete omission of exactly where the
Government will purchase this water.[5]
National stormwater funding
Stormwater harvesting was to be funded
under the $1 billion National Urban Water and Desalination Plan outlined
in the 2008–09 Budget.[6] However, after negotiations with Senator Xenophon the Government agreed to fund
stormwater harvesting as a new component under the Plan with at least
$200 million of the $1 billion to fund projects over the next four
years that use urban stormwater to reduce demand on potable water supplies.[7] The guidelines under the Plan were expanded to make it easier
for smaller project proponents to apply.[8] Government funding can be up to 50 per cent of project costs,
to a maximum of $20 million. In order to increase opportunities for
smaller towns and cities to participate, the minimum cost of an eligible
project has been reduced from $30 million to $4 million.[9]
Local plans for a future with less water
Under a new initiative agreed with Senator Xenophon, local
municipalities in the Murray–Darling Basin can apply for grants for use in
planning for future water constraints and to invest in associated local water
savings initiatives. There is no additional cost for this three–year $200 million
measure, which will be funded from within the existing resources of the $5.8 billion Sustainable
Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program.[10] No information is available about the guidelines or other parameters of these
grants on the DEWHA website.
Small block irrigators—exit grant package—expansion
Eligibility for exit grants of up to $150 000 available
under the $57.1 million Murray–Darling Basin Small Block Irrigators Exit
Grant Package was originally limited to farms less than 15 hectares (ha)
and was to end on 30 June 2009. From 13 February 2009, this
eligibility criterion was amended to allow farms of up to 40 ha to apply.[11] These exit grants are to allow small block irrigators with permanent water entitlements
of at least 10 megalitres who wish to cease irrigation farming to sell
their water entitlements to the Australian Government.[12] Senator Xenophon negotiated the increase in eligible block size as well as an
increase in the taxable grants available for the removal of irrigation
plantings and infrastructure from ‘up to $10 000’ to ‘up to $20 000’.
As a result of these changes funding of the scheme has increased by $45.4 million
and the funding extends through 2009–10. Budget Paper No. 2 indicates
that the total program funding is $107 million.[13] Within this total, funding of $4.0 million was provided after the 2008–09 Budget
to Centrelink to deliver the program as well as $0.5 million to the
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.[14] As with the Local plans budget measure above, this additional funding will also
be met from the $5.8 billion Sustainable Rural Water Use program.[15]
The Federal Member for Mallee, John Forrest, and the State Member
for Mildura, Peter Crisp, had concerns that the complexities of the package
could see growers, who wanted to leave horticulture, being unable to qualify:
Mr Forrest said selling water out of an irrigation district
attracted significant fees which could devalue the package substantially, and
there was no co–ordination between selling the water and receiving the
$150,000 grant.
“An applicant might sell the water, remove the farm
infrastructure and then be advised they don’t qualify for the grant,” Mr
Forrest said. In addition, all permanent plantings must be removed before the
grant can be paid.”
…During the five years after grant payment, applicants named
in the grant are disqualified from inheriting any tradeable water entitlement.
In addition, the loss of tradeable water in the system would impact on
remaining farmers who needed to buy temporary water to get a crop in times of
low allocation.[16]
Adelaide desalination plant expansion
The Government’s commitment for $228 million from the National
Urban Water and Desalination Plan to fund a potential expansion of the Adelaide
Desalination Plant at Port Stanvac from 50 gigalitres (GL) to 100 GL
per year is not a new budget measure.[17] The promised funding is in addition to the $100 million already
committed for the 50 GL plant. South Australian Premier, Mike Rann has
welcomed the additional commitment stating that South Australia will match the
Federal Government’s allocation to double the capacity to 100 GL per year
and commented that this will mean an end to water restrictions.[18] Senator Sarah Hanson–Young
was critical of this:
The news of the extra $228 million in Budget funds for
Adelaide’s desalination plant was promptly received by the South Australian
Premier as a sign that Adelaide’s water supply would be guaranteed ‘for decades
to come’, as he irresponsibly stated, signalling ‘the end of household water
restrictions’.
Even the subsequent qualification that Premier Rann meant
‘punitive’ water restrictions does not unmuddle the mixed messages coming out
of the State and Federal Governments about the need for all to be water–wise
for a sustainable future.
The Federal Government must make it clear to the South
Australian Government that its Budget funds were not provided so that Adelaide
could splash around its new, expensive, energy–intensive, effluent–producing
water supply, especially given the growing challenges presented by climate
change.[19]
[1]. Australian Government,
Budget measures, budget paper no. 2: 2009–2010, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra, 2009, p. 208, viewed 20 May 2009, http://www.aph.gov.au/budget/2009-10/content/bp2/download/bp_2.pdf
[2]. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2009–2010, p. 208.
[3]. Australian Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2009–10: budget related paper no.1.6: Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts Portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra, 2009, p. 20, viewed 20 May 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/budget/2009/pbs/pubs/pbs-2009-10.pdf.
[4]. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2009–2010, p. 412.
[5]. M Coulton, Failed water
buy–backs again favoured in Budget, media release, 13 May 2009,
viewed 21 May 2009, http://www.nationals.org.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=5893
[6]. L Emmett, L Nielson and A
Talberg, Budget 2008–09: environmental
and scientific issues, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2008, viewed
21 May 2009, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview/Environment_Issues.htm
[7]. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2009–2010, p. 208.
[8]. M Abraham and D Bevan,
‘Interview with Penny Wong’, ABC Radio 891, transcript, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 24 March 2009, viewed
21 May 2009, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2FIQLT6%22
[9]. Budget measures: budget
paper no. 2: 2009–2010, p. 208.
[10]. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2009–2010, p. 207.
[11]. Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, ‘Murray–Darling Basin small block irrigators exit
package’, viewed 21 May 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/water/programs/entitlement-purchasing/small-block-irrigators.html
[12]. P Wong, Small block
irrigators exit grant package expanded, media release,
24 April 2009, viewed 21 May 2009, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/2GET6/upload_binary/2get60.pdf
[13]. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2009–2010, p. 87.
[14]. Australian Government, Mid–year
economic and fiscal outlook 2008–09, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra,
2008, p 145, viewed 22 May 2009, http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/myefo/download/MYEFO_2008_09.pdf
[15]. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2009–2010, p. 87.
[16]. J Forrest, Small irrigator
exit package must be modified, media release, 16 February 2009,
viewed 21 May 2009, http://www.nationals.org.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=5576
[17]. P Wong (Minister for Climate
Change and Water), Additional $228 million to help secure Adelaide’s water
supply, media release, 12 May 2009, viewed 21 May 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/budmr20090512f.html
[18]. S Morris, ‘Funds
boost desalination fix for parched capital’, Australian financial review,13 May 2009,
viewed 18 May 2009, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/A4JT6/upload_binary/a4jt60.pdf;
G Kelton, C Russell and T Zed, ‘Water bans to end’, Advertiser,
14 May 2009, viewed 18 May 2009, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/45KT6/upload_binary/45kt62.pdf;
H Gout, ‘Money flowing like desalinated water’, Independent
weekly, 15 May 2009, viewed 18 May 2009, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/BJKT6/upload_binary/bjkt60.pdf
[19]. S Hanson–Young, Mixed
messages on water from Govts muddle SA’s water future, media release,
19 May 2009, http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/mixed-messages-water-govts-muddle-sa%E2%80%99s-water-future
|
