Outcome:	3	Question No:	89	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance Division	
Topic:	Community Water Grants	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	To be very clear, what programs can the Lockleys Bowling Club or the Klemzig footy club actually apply for that will have some equivalence to what they could have accessed under Community Water grants?
(b)	What can you apply for under that [the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative]?
(c)	All I want to know, Minister, is what the maximum grant or rebate can be under that [the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative] program?

Answer:
(a)	Community Water Grants will not have future funding rounds and an equivalent Commonwealth program is no longer available.  The clubs mentioned could apply to the South Australian Government’s Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program.  A number of other new Commonwealth programs were introduced at the time of the change to Community Water Grants including the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative.

(b)	and (c)	The National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative will provide household rebates of up $500 to install rainwater tanks and greywater systems.  Surf life saving clubs will be able to apply for grants of up to $10,000 to install rainwater tanks or to contribute towards water saving projects on-site.   

Outcome:	3 	Question No:	120	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance 	
Topic:	Water programs	
Hansard Page ECITA:	86 (29 May)	

Senator Bushby asked:
Who will you be partnering with that or who will be supplying the funds for that?  Will that be the Clarence City Council or southern Tasmanian water or the state government?  I notice the Clarence City Council is taking the lead, but I think it involves a number of councils. 

Answers:
Clarence City Council.

Outcome:	3 	Question No:	121	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance 	
Topic:	Caring for our Country; and Water programs	
Hansard Page ECITA:	87 (29 May)	

Senator Bushby asked:
The bottom line with the Tamar silt problem is that I am trying to find whether there is some way that we can move it forward because it is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed and it is beyond the capabilities of the Launceston City Council to do it on their own. The state government does not appear to be prepared to match. There are a number of programs. What I would like taken on notice is if anybody can give us any assistance as to the direction we can go to advance the addressing of the problem. I am not trying to score any political points with this one; I just want to get the problem fixed.

Answer:
The management of local government environment matters is primarily a state government responsibility. The Australian Government has no program that specifically targets the issue of reducing the silt problem in the Tamar River.

In the 2008-09 transition year, the Australian Government’s Caring for our Country initiative ($2.25 billion over the first 5 years) is providing funding to improve water quality through a variety of avenues. 

For example, community groups, regional natural resource management organisations and other legal entities were invited to apply for funding to undertake water control activities through the Community Coastcare and Open Grants funding rounds (which closed on 25 July 2008 and 1 August 2008 respectively).

Regional natural resource management organisations also had the opportunity to seek funding for water quality improvement activities as part of their 2008-09 regional investment strategies.

In future years, the Caring for our Country business plan will outline the Australian Government’s five year outcomes and shorter-term targets and priorities for investment in water quality improvement activities. It will also establish a simplified and integrated process for interested groups to submit proposals for activities that will contribute to achieving these outcomes, targets and priorities. 

The first Caring for our Country Business Plan is due to be released in September 2008 for the 2009-10 funding year. Relevant organisations, including local councils, will be able to submit proposals to undertake activities that will contribute to the outcomes identified in this business plan. 

A proposal to address the Tamar silt problem could be submitted as part of this process if it meets the funding criteria and can demonstrate that it contributes to the outcomes identified in the Caring for our Country Business Plan. 

Applications that deal with the source of environmental problems, such as siltation, and provide a longer term solution would generally be looked upon more favorably than remedial actions. 

Outcome:	3 	Question No:	122	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Reform Division	
Topic:	Murray-Darling Basin reform	
Hansard Page ECITA:	90 (29 May)	

Senator Birmingham asked:
Minister, I turn to clause 13 of the MOU. If all or any basin state ministers disagree with the cap or other relevant parts of the basin plan, these matters would be referred back to the authority for reappraisal. Will such disagreements by states be made public?

Senator Wong—I might have to take that on notice. I do not recall a clause in the MOU which talks about whether or not that would be made public... 

Answer:
While neither the MOU nor the Inter-Governmental Agreement of 3 July 2008 requires such references to the Authority to be made public, the transparency provisions for the making of the Basin Plan mean that such references would be, in practice, publicly available.  

Outcome:	3	Question No:	123	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Reform Division	
Topic:	Illegal diversion of water	
Hansard Page ECITA:	100 (29 May)	

Senator Bernardi asked:
Senator BERNARDI—Illegal diversions of water, yes, and earthworks and things of that nature…
I guess it goes to the urgency of this. When have you sought to establish what the New South Wales government has or has not done with regard to these?

Answer:
Most recently, the Australian and NSW Governments have shared information on current licence status and past compliance activity in preparation for a joint operation that was undertaken to examine 23 structures in the Macquarie Marshes. 

Outcome:	3	Question No:	124	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Water Entitlements	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham and Senator Nash asked:
(a)	How many Government bodies, including state government and statutory bodies, are currently in the markets or have funding set aside to buy back water entitlements? Please provide a breakdown of the funding available to each organisation to buy back water entitlements?
(b)	How is the Federal Government coordinating its purchases of water entitlements with these other organisations?
(c)	Did the Government target any particular valleys or regions in its recently completed $50 million water entitlement buyback tender?
(d)	The Minister has announced the Government purchased 35 Gigalitres of entitlement with its $50 million water entitlement buyback tender. Please provide a break down in megalitres of how much was high security water, how much was general security and provide a breakdown in megalitres from which valley/irrigation districts the water entitlements were purchased and the price paid per megalitre.
(e)	What is the water allocation attached to each license purchased during the $50 million tender for this water year and the coming water year?
(f)	How much water will flow to the Lower Lakes this year from water entitlements purchased under the $50 million tender? How much will flow in the next year to the Lower Lakes area of the basin?

Answers:
(a)	Four Government bodies and statutory authorities are currently in the water market or have funding set aside to buy back water entitlements.  The following table provides a breakdown of the funding available to each organisation to buy back water entitlements.
Organisation	Budget	
Australian Government	$3.1 billion over 10 years	
NSW Government TLM
NSW Government Riverbank	$205 million up to 2008-09
$125 million	
South Australian Government TLM	$11.87 million	
Victorian Government TLM	No specific budget. Small targeted purchases of water associated with decommissioning activities in the Lake Mokoan Project.	
(b)	The Australian Government Restoring the Balance program is aware of the activities of these other organisations and their approach to purchasing water entitlements. No information is shared on prices being paid for entitlements or individual offers received or being pursued.

(c)	The Government did not target any valleys or regions in its recently completed $50 million water entitlement buyback tender.  The tender was open to all willing sellers across the Murray Darling Basin wishing to sell their water entitlements to the Commonwealth.  

(d)	 Information on the Government’s purchases made as part of the Government’s $50 million water entitlement purchase program is posted on the Departmental website, www.environment.gov.au/water.

The data are aggregated where needed to protect the confidentiality and privacy of sellers.

The volumes being pursued by entitlement type and catchment are listed below.

Entitlement type	Volume (ML)	
High security	8427	
General security	24501	
Vic Low Reliability Water Share	1373	

Catchment	Entitlement type	Entitlements issued (ML)	2007-08 Government purchases (ML)	
NSW: Gwydir Regulated and Macquarie Regulated	General security	1141928	6685	
NSW: Lachlan	General and High security	619319	6999	
NSW: Murrumbidgee and Murray	General security	3713940	11273	
VIC: Campaspe River System	High reliability	45400	935	
VIC: Goulburn River System	Low reliability	626000	370	
VIC: Goulburn River System	High reliability	1615000	1750	
VIC: Murray	Low reliability	437000	1003	
VIC Murray	High reliability	1435000	4859	
SA: Murray River System	High security	514500	427	
(e)	  The 2007-08 allocations for each licence type are list below. For 2008-09, only allocations that have been announced are listed. 

Catchment	Entitlement type	2007-08 Australian Government water entitlement purchases (ML)	2007-08 water allocations (ML)	2008-09 Allocations (%)	
NSW: Gwydir and Macquarie Regulated	General security	6685	896	 0	
NSW: Lachlan	High and General security	6999	2145	 0	
NSW: Murray and Murrumbidgee Regulated	General security	11273	110.5	 0	
VIC: Campaspe River System	High reliability	935	168.3	0	
VIC: Goulburn River System	Low reliability	370	0.0	0	
VIC: Goulburn River System	High reliability	1750	997.5	0	
VIC: Murray River	Low reliability	1003	0.0	0	
VIC: Murray River 	High reliability	4599	2089.4	0	
SA: Murray River System	High security	427	136.6	2	

(f)	Increases in flows will depend on allocations announced for entitlements that have been acquired from willing sellers.  Storages across the Southern Basin are at all time low levels, and the outlook for the remainder of this year is not good.  If there are minimum inflows in 2008-09, the allocations for the entitlements purchased from willing sellers will be small and therefore associated flows to the Lower Lakes this year will be very small. Flows to the Lower Lakes next year will depend on the inflows to the Murray Darling Basin system, which are very uncertain.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	125	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Murray Darling Basin	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	What is the Government doing to provide immediate relief to irrigators, communities, wetlands and the Lower Lakes, all of whom are suffering an unprecedented crisis because of the drought gripping the Murray-Darling Basin?
(b)	Given the Minister conceded in the Sydney Morning Herald that dams and water storage levels across the Murray-Darling are so low that "it may be some time before the water is able to be delivered", will the Government be offering any additional assistance to farmers, irrigators and communities who are suffering in some cases their sixth year of zero or very low allocations? 
(c)	Given the Minister conceded in the Sydney Morning Herald that dams and water storage levels across the Murray-Darling are so low that "it may be some time before the water is able to be delivered", will the Government be offering any additional assistance to the environment including wetlands and the Lower Lakes?
(d)	How will the Government proceed with its water entitlement buybacks over the next four years? Will it continue to offer tenders? 
(e)	How much funding has been allocated for water entitlement buybacks over the next four financial years? Please provide a breakdown for each financial year.
(f)	Will the Government consider retiring any water entitlements held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder?
(g)	Will the Government sell or trade any water entitlement licences held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder?
(h)	How much permanent water is traded in the Murray-Darling Basin annually (average over the past 10 years)? Please provide a breakdown of the types of water entitlements traded i.e. high security, general security etc
(i)	Will the Government consider any compulsory acquisition of water entitlements over the next four financial years?

Answers:
(a)	The government provides a range of assistance measures for irrigators and communities who are suffering because of drought. These programs are managed by a number of Australian Government agencies including the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), the Department of Human Services, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. These include: 
•	Assistance for eligible irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin of up to $20,000 (GST exclusive) to help implement on-farm activities that address reduced water allocations and maximise the productive use of available water. The program targets those irrigators who are having difficulty meeting the costs of adjusting their business to reduced water availability or who are trying to introduce more substantial changes to their irrigation businesses in light of a possible sustained decline in water availability. Irrigators are able to access the taxable grant from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2009. A fact sheet "New Assistance Measures for Irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin” is available on the DAFF website. 
•	Funding of $7.5 million for workshops and other information sessions to assist irrigators to manage challenges and risks due to zero and low water allocations; broaden their planning and risk management options; and provide information on government support available to them. The program aims to equip irrigators with specific agronomic and business advice to allow them to investigate all options and to assist with decisions for farm business survival this irrigation season. The bulk of the information sessions are being held between May and October 2008. The focus industries are rice, horticulture, dairy, cotton and wine-grape. Further details, including dates, towns and venues of the information sessions are available from the Murray-Darling Basin Assistance and Referral Line on 1800 050 015 and from the DAFF website. 
•	Grants of up to $5,500 (GST inclusive) for eligible farm business located in all Exceptional Circumstance (EC) declared areas to access professional advice and planning with the aim of assisting farmers to develop a drought management or risk management plan. Applications are accepted until 12 June 2009. A fact sheet “Greater Access to Grants for Professional Advice and Planning” is available from the DAFF website. 
•	EC income support and interest rate subsidies for farmers (including irrigators) and small business affected by an exceptional circumstance event such as the current drought. Fact sheets explaining the different programs that are available are on the DAFF website. 
•	Social and community support measures for farming families, communities and educational institutions. This includes rural financial counsellors, Centrelink Rural Support Officers, Drought Force, social and emotional counselling services and funding for education to students and schools. Fact sheets explaining the different programs that are available are on the DAFF website. 

In addition on 3 July 2008, following the COAG meeting it was announced that South Australia would receive up to $610 million for projects that include:
•	$200 million for an enduring solution to the problems facing the Lower Lakes and Coorong, with $10 million immediately available to accelerate projects for the Lower Lakes and Coorong.
•	$120 million to be spent on piping works to service towns, communities and irrigators currently relying on the Lower Lakes for their water supply.

(b)	The government is monitoring the situation and the Hon Penny Wong Minister for Climate Change and Water will continue to work closely with the Hon Tony Burke MP, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in relation to water issues and agriculture. Contingency planning for 2008-09 is a priority for governments, in particular to secure supplies to meet critical human needs, however within Minister Burke's portfolio there are specific programs currently available to assist farmers to deal with the drought and irrigators in particular to cope with reduced water allocations. The government is also continuing to talk to irrigators on how we can improve our ability to farm under lower water availability, address climate change challenges, and tackle other risks. 

(c)	In addition to the $320 million COAG package for the Lower Lakes, the MDBC is spending $6m on pumping water from Lake Alexandrina to lake Albert to manage the acid sulphate soil problem in Lake Albert.  The MDB Ministerial Council and South Australian Government are also actively considering the issues facing the Lower lakes.

(d)	The Government’s water purchase program will proceed over the next four financial years. The most efficient and effective methods of purchasing water will be used, drawing on experience and the advice of the Stakeholder Consultative Committee.

(e)	$1.437 billion is allocated for water entitlement buybacks over the next four financial years. This funding excludes program administration (Departmental) funding of $74.6 million. Total funding including program administration is $1.512 billion.  
Year	Administered Budget	
2008-09	$157m	
2009-10	$466m	
2010-11	$468m	
2011-12	$346m	

(f)	There is currently no intention to retire any water entitlements held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.

(g)	The Water Act 2007 allows the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to sell entitlements if further water purchased with the proceeds will improve the capacity of the Commonwealth environmental water holdings to meet environmental watering objectives as required by the Act.

(h)	The type of data that has been requested for the past 10 years, disaggregated by security type, is not readily available. Some data on permanent water trade is available from state-managed water registers and the websites of irrigation corporations. The volume of entitlements traded in the main catchments of Victoria and NSW in the 2007-08 financial year is shown in the table below. The type of data that has been requested is not available for Queensland or South Australia.

(i)	The Water Act 2007 prohibits the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	126	
Output:	3.1 and 3.2	
Division:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Structural Adjustment	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	Under the original National Plan for Water Security, which was supported by the Labor Party, was $1.5 billion set aside for water entitlement buybacks and $1.5 billion for structural adjustments? 
(b)	How much has been allocated to the Water for the Future – Sustainable Rural Use and Infrastructure fund for each of financial years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13?
(c)	Does the Government still have a structural adjustment package to help struggling communities adjust to the permanent loss of water under the new Basin-wide cap?
(d)	How much has been set aside for structural adjustments?
(e)	Has the $1.5 billion structural adjustment program for communities affected by the loss of their irrigation industries been cut? If not, how much will be made available and when? 

Answers:
(a)	No
(b)	Water for the Future – Sustainable Rural Use and Infrastructure Program
Year	Funds allocated ($m)	
2008-09	172.9	
2009-10	780.8	
2010-11	561.2	
2011-12	850.7	
2012-13	Past the current forward estimate period	
(c)	The Government may provide structural adjustment funding as described in clause 4.8.2(d) of the 3 July 2008 Inter-Governmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform
(d)	There is no notional funding amount allocated for the purpose of structural adjustment
(e)	There is no notional funding amount allocated for the purpose of structural adjustment

Outcome:	3	Question No:	127	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Water efficiency	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	The Minister’s media release of 29 April 2008 states a further $5.8 billion will be available under the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program for key rural water projects that help secure a long term sustainable future for irrigation regions and return water to the rivers, Is it still the Government’s intention to provide $3.310 billion for delivering system efficiency gains; $1.635 billion on-farm efficiency program; $620 million for metering, monitoring and accounting; and $500 million for improving river operations and storage?
(b)	Budget Related Paper No 1.6 states, on page 58, that in 2007-08 Estimated Actual $122, 001 million will be spent this financial year on Water for the Future – Sustainable Rural Water use and Infrastructure, Please provide a breakdown of each project, on which this funding has been spent a, which electorate they are in and what the water savings are estimated to be?
(c)	In what electorates are the nine ‘on-farm efficiency pilot projects which have been invited to submit more information located?  Please provide a brief outline of each project, estimated cost, estimated water savings and when they will be funded?
(d)	Is it still the Government’s intention to invest $1.635 billion in ‘on-farm efficiencies’? If not, why not and how much are they going to invest?
(e)	Is the Government maintaining the principle established by the former government that all irrigation modernisation projects such as the on-farm and in system investments would share the water savings achieved 50:50 between irrigators and the government? If not, what is the Governments position on sharing water savings between the Government and irrigators?

Answers:
(a)	Funding provided will be consistent with Commonwealth investment principles described in clause 4.10 of the 3 July 2008 Inter-Governmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform

(b)	Projects receiving Water for the Future – Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure funding in the 2007-08 financial year:

Project	Funding ($m)	Electorate	Estimated water savings (GL)	
Election Commitment – Investing in Murray Darling Infrastructure – Wimmera Mallee Pipeline	78.0	Mallee, Wannon	103	
Election Commitment – Western Australia Irrigation – Harvey Water Piping Project	35.0	Forrest, Canning	17	
Election Commitment – Water for Rivers to Support Achieving 21% Snowy River Environmental Flows 	6.3 (plus $6.0m from the Restoring the Balance in the Murray-Darling Basin program) 	Gippsland, Eden-Monaro, Mallee, Wannon, Bendigo, Murray, McEwen, Indi, Ballarat, Farrer, Riverina, Hume, Fraser, Canberra	212 (see note)*	
On-farm Irrigation	0.2	N/A – proposed projects are still at the assessment stage	N/A – proposed projects are still at the assessment stage	
Modernising Planning Assistance	1.2	Gippsland, Farrer, Murray, Riverina, Hinkler, Dawson, Forrest, Calare, Mallee, Barker	N/A 	
Irrigation Hotspots	0.7	Research stage only, no on-ground work as yet	N/A	
Metering	0.6	All of Australia	N/A – Basic research stage only	
Total	$122.0m			

* Water for Rivers is tasked with obtaining 212GL for the Snowy River, to return 21 per cent of natural flow, by 2012.  Victoria and New South Wales have each committed $150 million over the ten years to 2012 to achieve this, while as an election commitment, the Australian Government has allocated a further $50 million over the years 2007-08 to 2010-11 to assist in meeting this target. Of the $50 million, $12.283 million has already been paid. The remaining funds have been nominally allocated for expenditure.

(c) The nine applicants invited to submit a detailed proposal are located in the electorates of Murray, Riverina, Barker, O’Conner, Parkes, Farrer, Calare and New England. Details regarding specific project activities, project costs and water savings cannot be provided as applicants are yet to submit a full funding proposal for consideration. Funding is expected to be provided to successful applicants in the 2008-09 financial year.

(d) $5.8 billion has been allocated under the Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program of the $12.9 billion Water for the Future initiative for water efficiency measures including upgrading irrigation infrastructure. The On-Farm (Pilot Projects) Program is part of the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program. Consistent with the Council of Australian Governments Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray Darling Basin Reform signed on 4 July, the Australian Government has agreed in principle to provide up to $3.7 billion for significant water projects in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, subject to due diligence assessment of these projects. These projects include a range of on-farm activities.  The Australian Government will also consider Irrigation Water Provider priority project proposals that incorporate on-farm components.

(e) Water sharing requirements remain unchanged.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	128	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Lower Lakes	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	
Senator Nash asked:
(a)	Is it not a fact that even if you bought $3.1 billion of water entitlements last week there would be no increased flows to the Lower Lakes, because there is no or very low allocation attached to water entitlements because of the drought, extremely low major storage levels and the Drought Contingency Measures currently in place in the Murray Darling Basin?
(b)	Why has the Government done nothing to dispel the myths and impression given by some environmentalists and academics that buying back billions of dollars of water entitlements from irrigators will result in immediate relief for wetlands and the Lower Lakes?
(c)	Is it not a fact that simply transferring bought water entitlements from irrigators to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is perpetuating the over-allocation of the Murray Darling Basin system? Why is the government refusing to retire any of those water entitlements out of the system? 

Answers:
(a)	Current announced allocations for the 2008-09 year are 2% for South Australian High security water entitlement holders and 0% for all Victorian Murray Darling Basin rivers. New South Wales had not yet announced allocations for 2008-09. These very low allocations will restrict the ability to increase flows to the Lower Lakes from any entitlements that are purchased by the Commonwealth.

(b)	The Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ plan is a commitment to improved river health by investing in improved irrigation efficiency and through the purchase of water entitlements over 10 years. The Government through the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council has also supported immediate action to prevent serious environmental degradation of the Coorong and Lower Lakes such as pumping from Lake Alexandrina to Lake Albert.

(c)	The purchase of water entitlements by the Commonwealth to protect or restore environmental assets will reduce the over-allocation of our water resources to consumptive uses such as irrigation. The Government is not retiring any water entitlements out of the system. Retiring water entitlements would only serve to boost the reliability for remaining entitlement holders and provide no additional water for the environment. 

Outcome:	3	Question No:	129	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Water Entitlements	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Nash asked:
I refer you to the ABC TV’s Land Line program where it quoted findings by WaterFinds Tom Rooney; “This week, Senator Wong restated the COAG pledge to buy just over $3 billion worth of entitlements, putting the water back into river flows. With around 100 gigs traded in a year, that splash would buy the tradable amount every year for over a decade.”
(a)	Is the figure of 100 gigs traded every year an accurate figure? How much water entitlements does the Government expect to buy back with the $3.1 billion allocated for this purpose?
(b)	Isn’t it a fact that the Federal Government would have to buy every megalitre of water traded by willing sellers, every year for the next fifteen years to fulfill its stated aim of purchasing 1500 gigalitres? 
(c)	Will you rule out any compulsory acquisition of water entitlements over the next four financial years?

Answers:

(a)	No. For 2007-08, from July 2007 to April 2008, the total volume of trade was 323.9 GL.

The amount of water purchased with the $3.1 billion will depend on whether the water is high security or low security and the prevailing market price at the time of the purchases.

(b)	The figure of 100 GL traded every year is not accurate. At least 323.9 GL was traded in 2007-08.

It is impossible to predict how much water will be offered for sale each year for the next decade.

(c)	The Water Act 2007 prohibits the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	130	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Stakeholder Consultative Committee/Water Entitlements	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham and Senator Nash asked:
In a Media Release dated 20th May, 2008; ‘Senator Wong said she was aware of concerns being raised by some Basin communities in relation to the water purchase program.’ 

(a)	What were the concerns that were raised with the Minister by individuals and organisations about its recent $50 million water entitlement buyback?
(b)	What are the terms of reference for the Stakeholder Consultative Committee which was announced by the Minister to review the $50 million water entitlement buy back tender?
(c)	Has the Department done any social or economic impact studies on the affect of buying water entitlements has on regional and rural communities? Can you table those studies and make them public? If not, why not?
(d)	Will the Stakeholder Consultative Committee be looking at the social and economic consequences of large water entitlement buy backs on regional and rural communities in the Murray Darling Basin?
(e)	Did the Minister give a personal undertaking to the Chair of the National Farmers Federation's Water Taskforce, Mr Laurie Arthur ‘that the next stage of the $3 billion buyback will be more open.’
(f)	Are Mr Arthur’s comments on ABC radio that "We have an undertaking from the minister that, providing it doesn't breach an commercial in confidence, she'll provide as much information as she can, and also look at putting it on registers," correct?
(g)	How will the register work? What information will the Minister put on the register? Will the information be available in ‘real time’? Who would be able to access the register?

Answers:
(a)	There were concerns raised about the purchase program including concern about the transparency of the process used to purchase water entitlements and the effect of the purchases on the economic viability of irrigation communities.

(b)	Stakeholder Consultative Committee terms of reference.

1.	The Committee will:
­	Provide feedback to the Department and (indirectly) to the Australian Government on the design and implementation of the Water Entitlement Purchase program in the Murray Darling Basin and emerging water resource management issues;
­	Provide advice and participate as appropriate in community engagement programs relating to water purchasing and provide the Department with advice on the effectiveness of that engagement;
­	Assist the Department by disseminating within the community information and decisions on Government water purchasing in a way that promotes clear understanding of the context and rationale, and enhances community acceptance; and
­	Provide a stakeholder perspective on the community and industry impact of water purchasing including input to the review of the outcomes of the first phase of Australian Government water purchases.  
2.	The Committee will meet at least twice during the term of their appointment.
3.	The term of Committee appointments will be up to 18 months.
4.	The Committee will not have a role in assessing and/or recommending any specific water purchase opportunities.

(c)	The review of the water entitlement purchase program, currently underway, will look at the impact of the program on irrigation industries and rural communities.

(d)	Yes.

(e)	The review of the water entitlement purchase program is currently underway. The Stakeholder Consultative Committee will provide input to the review. Mr Laurie Arthur is a member of the Stakeholder Consultative Committee.

(f)	Yes.

(g)	The registers are owned and operated by the States.  The Victorian and New South Wales registers are available on the internet.  The South Australia and Queensland registers need to be interrogated physically.  The registers record information on completed trades and include date, volume and price of individual trades.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	131	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Reform Division	
Topic:	Establishment of Murray Darling Basin Authority	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham and Senator Nash asked:
In a Media release on the 20 May 2008 titled STAKEHOLDERS TO EVALUATE MURRAY DARLING WATER PURCHASE – the Minister stated “A further $5.8 billion will be invested in sustainable irrigation infrastructure and projects to help communities make an early adjustment to a new Basin-wide cap on water use.”

(a)	Is it a fact that the Water Act 2007 which came into force on the 3rd of March 2008 establishes an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the functions and powers, including enforcement powers, needed to ensure that Basin water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way? 
(b)	Why has the Minister failed to appoint any members to the Murray-Darling Authority?
(c)	If members had been appointed following the Water Act 2007 coming into force on 3 March 2008 what, if anything, would have prevented the Murray-Darling Basin Authority from commencing work on the Basin Plan?
(d)	Is it not a fact that the Minister had the power six months ago to begin preparing a Basin Plan for adoption by the Minister, including setting sustainable limits on water that can be taken from surface and groundwater systems across the Basin; develop a water rights information service which facilitates water trading across the Murray-Darling Basin; begin measuring and monitoring water resources in the Basin?
(e)	How is the Minister assessing the buyback of water entitlements in the absence of a Basin Plan?
(f)	Why has the Minister delayed the vital development of a new Basin-wide cap?
(g)	How will the old roles of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission be amalgamated within the new Authority?
(h)	How can the Minister buy back water entitlements to address over-allocation in the Basin when she has not even begun the work needed to develop a new Basin-wide cap despite having the power to do so?
(i)	Is it not a fact that given the complicated nature of the work involved in setting a new valley by valley and Basin-wide cap, the work will take up to two years to complete? Why has the Minister delayed this valuable work by at least twelve months?
(j)	When will the Government begin work on the new Basin-wide cap and when will interested parties be able to make submissions?
(k)	What will be the processes involved in drawing up the new Basin-wide cap?
(l)	How much funding has been set aside for this work?
(m)	How much funding has been set aside for the new Murray Darling Basin Authority which is to include the Murray Darling Basin Commission?
(n)	How will the new Murray Darling Basin Authority work? What will be its role and responsibilities? 
(o)	Will State Governments continue to provide funding for the new Murray Darling Basin Authority as they previously did for the Murray Darling Basin Commission?
(p)	Will the states still have a veto right as they currently do on the Murray Darling Basin Commission within the new Murray Darling Basin Authority? 

Answers:
(a)	Yes.
(b)-(c)The Government preferred not to appoint members to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority until agreement was reached by the Commonwealth and Basin states on the new Murray-Darling Basin institutional structure and governance arrangements.
(d)	The Water Act 2007 requires the Basin Plan to be developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. 
(e)	During the 2007-08 Water Entitlement Purchasing Program for the Murray-Darling Basin, the Department of the Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts assessed sell offers against their capacity to provide water for ‘high value environmental assets’ and on achieving value for money.  
(f)	See answer to (d).
(g)	The arrangements by which the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be brought together as a new, single institution are set out in the 3 July 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform.  
(h)	See answer to (e).
(i)	As noted in the 3 July 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will provide a Basin Plan in early 2011.  
(j)	The Basin Plan will begin being prepared upon the appointment of the members of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The statutory requirements for consultation by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in preparing the Basin Plan are set out in the Water Act 2007.  
(k)	The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will establish the processes for determining long-term average sustainable diversion limits for the Basin water resources consistent with the requirements of the Water Act 2007.  
(l)	The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will receive Commonwealth funding from the 'Driving Reform in the Basin' program of 'Water for the Future'.   
(m)	See answer to (l). 
(n)	The role and responsibilities of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority are set out in the Water Act 2007 and the 3 July 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform.
(o)	The arrangements by which State Governments will make contributions to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority are set out in the 3 July 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform.
(p)	Basin state veto rights have been modified in accordance with the 3 July 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	132	
Output:	3.1 and 3.2	
Division:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Structural Adjustment	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Nash asked:
In a Media Release on the 29 April 2008 titled RUDD GOVERNMENT TO INVEST $12.9 BILLION IN WATER – it states; ‘Senator Wong said $3.1 billion will be set aside to purchase water to put back in Murray Darling Basin waterways.’ 

(a)	Is it not a fact that under the original National Plan for Water Security, which was supported by the Labor Party, $1.5 billion was set aside for water entitlement buybacks and $1.5 billion for structural adjustments?
(b)	How much has been allocated to the Water for the Future – Sustainable Rural Use and Infrastructure fund for each of the following financial year; 08-9, 09-10, 10-11, 11-12, and 12-13?
(c)	Does the Government still have a structural adjustment package to help struggling communities adjust to the permanent loss of water under the new Basin-wide cap?
(d)	How much has been set aside for structural adjustments?
(e)	Has the $1.5 billion structural adjustment program for communities which will be devastated by the loss of their irrigation industries been cut? If not how much will be made available and when?
(f)	The Minister’s Media Release on the 29th of April 2008 states a further $5.8 billion will be available under the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program for key rural water projects that help secure a long term sustainable future for irrigation regions and return water to the rivers, is it still the Government’s intention to provide $3.130 billion for delivering system efficiency gains; $1.635 billion on-farm efficiency program $620 million for metering, monitoring and accounting and $500 million for improving river operations and storage?
(g)	Budget Related Paper NO.1.6, page 58 states that in 2007-08 Estimated Actual; $122,001 million will be spent this financial year on Water for the Future – Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure; please provide a breakdown of each project this funding was spent on, which electorate it was in, and what the water savings are estimate to be?

Answers:
(a)	$3 billion was made available under the National Plan for Water Security for the over allocation program which provided funding for both structural adjustment and water buyback.
(b)	Water for the Future – Sustainable Rural Use and Infrastructure Program
Year	Funds allocated ($m)	
2008-09	172.9	
2009-10	780.8	
2010-11	561.2	
2011-12	850.7	
2012-13	Past the current forward estimate period	
(c)	The Government may provide structural adjustment funding as described in clause 4.8.2(d) of the 3 July 2008 Inter-Governmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform.
(d)	There is no notional funding amount allocated for the purpose of structural adjustment.
(e)	There is no notional funding amount allocated for the purpose of structural adjustment.
(f)	Funding to be provided will be consistent with Commonwealth investment principles described in clause 4.10 of the 3 July 2008 Inter-Governmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform and inline with Budget Papers.
(g)	Projects receiving Water for the Future – Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program funding in the 2007-08 financial year:
Project	Funding ($m)	Electorate	Estimated water savings (GL)	
Election Commitment – Investing in Murray Darling Infrastructure – Wimmera Mallee Pipeline	78.0	Mallee, Wannon	103	
Election Commitment – Western Australia Irrigation – Harvey Water Piping Project	35.0	Forrest, Canning	17	
Election Commitment – Water for Rivers to Support Achieving 21 per cent Snowy River Environmental Flows 	6.3 (plus $6.0m from the Restoring the Balance in the Murray-Darling Basin program) 	Gippsland, Eden-Monaro, Mallee, Wannon, Bendigo, Murray, McEwen, Indi, Ballarat, Farrer, Riverina, Hume, Fraser, Canberra	212 (see note)*	
On-farm Irrigation	0.2	N/A – proposed projects are still at the assessment stage	N/A – proposed projects are still at the assessment stage	

Project	Funding ($m)	Electorate	Estimated water savings (GL)	
Modernising Planning Assistance	1.2	Gippsland, Farrer, Murray, Riverina, Hinkler, Dawson, Forrest, Calare, Mallee, Barker	N/A 	
Irrigation Hotspots	0.7	Research stage only, no on-ground work as yet	N/A	
Metering	0.6	All of Australia	N/A – Basic research stage only	
Total	$122.0m			
 
* Water for Rivers is tasked with obtaining 212GL for the Snowy River, to return 21 per cent of natural flow, by 2012.  Victoria and New South Wales have each committed $150 million over the ten years to 2012 to achieve this, while as an election commitment, the Australian Government has allocated a further $50 million over the years 2007-08 to 2010-11 to assist in meeting this target. Of the $50 million, $12.283 million has already been paid. The remaining funds have been nominally allocated for expenditure.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	133	
Output:	3.2	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Election Commitments	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham and Senator Nash asked:
(a)	Is the Document titled ‘Labor’s national plan to tackle the water crisis. Election 2007. Policy Document Kevin Rudd MP Federal Labor Leader Anthony Albanese MP Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Water November 2007,’ which was ‘Authorised and Printed by T. Gartrell, 161 London  Circuit, Canberra City ACT 2600.’ official Labor Party policy?
(b)	Is it now Government policy
(c)	Are there $1.017 billion of pre-election promises in this document, which were to have been funded from the $5.8 billion infrastructure component of the $10 billion National Plan for Water Security now known as the Water for the Future program?  If not, how much is dollar the value of these promises?
(d)	Please provide an electorate by electorate breakdown of each election commitment, a brief outline of the project, its value, what year construction is to begin, when it will be completed, how much water is to saved, which program the project is to be funded and how the project fits into the overall basin plan?

Answers:
(a)	The document was an official Labor Party policy statement released during the 2007 Federal election. 
(b)	The Water for the Future initiative was announced on 29 April 2008 as the Government’s comprehensive response to Australia’s water needs. 
(c)	There are $895.850 million in specific project commitments (apart from those indicated in the 3 July 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement) under the Water for the Future Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program.
(d)	See Attachment A for the requested information.  Those projects which are within the Murray Darling Basin, while not directly part of the Basin Plan, will assist in the management of water resources within the extractable limits set by the Plan for the Basin.

ATTACHMENT A
Project commitments funded from the $5.8b Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program

Brief outline of the project	$m                      
	Electorate
	Year Construction is to begin, and when it will be completed	* Estimate of Water Saving	
Harvey Water (WA) -  irrigation infrastructure and transfer of saved water to Perth.   	49.0	Forrest	Project started in 1996-97.
Expected to finish 2010-11.  	Estimated up to 17.1 GL/yr	
Carnarvon (WA) - Irrigation infrastructure upgrades for Gascoyne Water.	6.60	Kalgoorlie	Expected start in 2008-09 
Expected to finish 2010-11 	Not yet specified. 
	
Tasmania - support for more efficient irrigation in Tasmania. Six greenfield irrigation areas have been identified (Midlands Water Scheme (3 areas), Shannon Catchment, Mersey-Forth, north-eastern Tas)	140.0	Bass
Braddon
Lyons	Projects are at various stages of feasibility assessment.  	Projects are at various stages of feasibility.  
	
Lithgow (NSW) -  recycled water for power station use. 	4.0	Macquarie	Construction expected in 2009, with completion expected by end of 2010.	Estimated up to 1.8GL /yr	
Oberon (NSW) - recycled water to timber operations.	0.25	Macquarie	Construction commenced in early 2008, expected to be completed by end of 2008.	Estimated up to 360ML/yr	
Nyngan Warren pipeline (NSW) - replace a water supply channel to reduce transmission losses.	12.0	Calare	Subject to the confirmation of co-financing, initial stages of the project are expected to commence during 2008-09. Australian Government expenditure is expected to continue until 2010/11.	Estimated up to 4GL/yr	
Wimmera Mallee (Vic) - additional funding to complete replacement of open water supply channels.	124.0	Mallee	Commenced October 2006 
Completion September 2009	Estimated at 103 GL/yr	
Spencer Gulf (SA) - Desalination Plant in upper Spencer Gulf 	160.0	Grey	Not yet determined.	Not yet determined but a capacity of 11 GL/yr has been proposed. 	
Menindee (NSW) - to reduce evaporation losses through infrastructure improvements.	400.0	Farrer 
(also bordering on Calare)	Not yet determined.  	Estimated up to 200 GL/yr.  	
* Many project proposals have not progressed sufficiently to quantify water savings, figures supplied are estimates and subject to confirmation.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	134	
Output:	3.2	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Menindee Lakes	
Hansard Page ECITA:	54	

Senator Birmingham and Senator Nash asked:
On the 20th November, 2007 the Shadow Minister stated; “A Rudd Labor Government will invest up to $400 million in practical water saving projects to improve water efficiency and make massive water savings at Menindee Lakes on the Darling River in Western New South Wales.” 
(a)	What work has the Government undertaken to implement this election commitment?
(b)	From what program will the $400 million election commitment for the Menindee Lakes come from and who will be the lead agency?
(c)	Has the Government had any discussions with any relevant State Government Minister’s or departments in relation to $400 million Menindee Lakes election Commitment?
(d)	What type of work will be undertaken with the $400 million Menindee Lakes election commitment?
(e)	When will work commence at Menindee Lakes on the Government’s $400 million Menindee Lakes commitment and when will it be completed?
(f)	In the same Media Release from the Shadow Minister on the 20th of November, 2007, Mr Albanese states; ‘Federal Labor will also invest up to $12 million to fund the missing link pipeline between Warren and Nyngan in Western NSW to provide greater water security for the communities of Cobar and Nyngan and return up to 2 billion litres per year to the Murray Darling Basin.’ Has the Government started work on this election commitment?
(g)	What discussion’s has the Government or the Department had with the NSW Government to progress this $12 million election commitment?
(h)	When will this project commence?
(i)	Under what program is the $12 million to fund the missing link pipeline between Warren and Nyngan being funded and who will be the lead agency?
(j)	The Shadow Minister at that time, Mr Albanese’s media release states that the $12 million project to fund the missing link pipeline between Warren and Nyngan will return 2 billion litres of per year to the Murray Darling Basin? Does this mean any water saved from piping the water will have to be returned to the Macquarie River? 

Answer:
(a)	Officers from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) have held several meetings and discussions with NSW officials from the Department of Water and Energy to progress the Menindee Lakes project. 

The first stage of a feasibility study titled the ‘Darling River Water Savings Project’ (DRWSP) has been completed (Part A). Arrangements for the second stage of the feasibility study (Part B) are being finalised between NSW and the Australian Government. The Part B feasibility study will further analyse the technical options from Part A. 
(b)	The $400 million Menindee Lakes election commitment will be funded from the Government’s $12.9 billion water reform package, ‘Water for the Future’. DEWHA will be the lead agency for the Australian Government.
(c)	Minister Wong met with NSW Minister Rees on Friday 30 May 2008 to discuss water management matters, including Menindee Lakes.  The Project Steering Committee and Government Officials Committee has also met.
(d)	The type of work undertaken at Menindee Lakes and securing Broken Hill’s water supply is contingent on the completion of the Darling River Water Savings Project feasibility Part B study that will recommend a preferred option for works. 
(e)	The first part of the project’s feasibility study titled the ‘Darling River Water Savings Project’ (Part A) has already been completed. For a project of this magnitude, the timeframe for commencement and completion of infrastructure works at Menindee Lakes and securing Broken Hill’s water supply is likely to be a number of years. 
(f)	The Australian Government has commenced work on the Warren to Nyngan pipeline election commitment.  Officials from DEWHA have held a range of discussions with key stakeholders, including the NSW Government, Cobar Shire Council and Bogan Shire Council and have also undertaken a site visit of the area.
(g)	The Department has spoken with and met representatives from the NSW Government on several occasions.  DEWHA has also written to the NSW Government to discuss the requirements related to NSW Government co-financing of the project.
(h)	Subject to the confirmation of co-financing from the NSW Government, the project is expected to commence during the 2008-09 financial year.
(i)	The Warren to Nyngan pipeline will be funded under the $5.8 billion Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program. DEWHA is the lead agency.
(j)	Water savings obtained by the Australian Government from its investment in the Warren - Nyngan pipeline project will be used by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder for environmental watering in the Macquarie River System. 

Outcome:	3	Question No:	135	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance 	
Topic:	Election Commitments	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice	

Senator Nash asked:
(a)	The Document titled ‘Labor’s national plan to tackle the water crisis. Election 2007 states that; “Up to $124 million further investment in the Wimmera Mallee pipeline project to ensure the project is completed and water savings delivered as soon as possible.’ Is this an accurate description of the Labor Party’s election commitment? 
(b)	Is it still the Government’s intention to provide $124 million to the Wimmera Mallee? If not why not?
(c)	Is it not a fact that the Minister has written to her Victorian counterpart arguing stating the Commonwealth Government is only committed to funding $99 million and not $124 million as promised prior to the election? Is the Wimmera Mallee pipeline going to be another victim of the government’s long list of broken promises?

Answers:
(a)	The quoted section is accurate.
(b)	The Government has approved $99 million in additional funding for the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline project.  With six of the seven supply systems now under contract, it appears likely that the Commonwealth Government’s additional funding of $99 million together with Victoria’s contribution of $99 million will be sufficient to ensure the project is completed as soon as possible.  
(c)	The Minister wrote to her Victorian counterpart on 7 June 2008 advising that consistent with the Government’s election commitment up to a further $25 million is potentially available provided it is required to finish the project.  

Outcome:	3	Question No:	136	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance Division	
Topic:	Adelaide Water Supply/lower lakes/election commitments	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham and Senator Nash asked:
(a)	What has the Minister done to secure Adelaide’s water supply into the future?
(b)	Does the Government support either a temporary or permanent Weir known as the Wellington Weir option in South Australia? Has the Government, department or Murray-Darling Basin Commission undertaken any work or studies on the Wellington Weir option?  If so, please outline what work or studies have been undertaken or are being undertaken. 
(c)	Has the Government done any feasibility studies, environmental or socio-economic studies into removing the barrages and allowing sea water back into the lower lakes? 
(d)	What work has been undertaken by the Government or the department in relation to securing Adelaide’s water supply and will the government be contributing funds to any projects?
(e)	What work has been undertaken by the Government or the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in relation to the construction of a desalination plant in Adelaide?  If so, please outline what work or studies have been undertaken or are being undertaken.
(f)	Given the dire state of the Murray and the storages on in the Southern part of the Murray Darling Basin, what time frame does the Government believe is reasonable for drought proofing projects which augment Adelaide’s water supplies and help alleviate the pressures further downstream to be completed?
(g)	What is the government doing to combat concerns about soil acidity in the Lower Lakes? Has any funding being allocated to address this crisis?

Answers:
(a)	On 3 July 2008, COAG signed an intergovernmental agreement that includes reform aimed at securing water for households, farmers and the long-term health of the Murray Darling Basin.  This arrangement includes a commitment to provide for critical human needs and allows South Australia to store water in the Hume and Dartmouth dams to ensure there is enough water for Adelaide and towns reliant on the Murray for drinking water.

Work by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments on Dry Inflow Contingency Planning continues which will ensure that water for critical human needs can be provided during the drought, particularly for communities relying on the River Murray, such as Adelaide.

In addition, through ‘Water for the Future’, the Government has committed up to $160 million for a desalination plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf; $40.2 million towards wastewater and stormwater recycling projects in Adelaide; and the Government will provide funding for Adelaide’s desalination plant subject to a suitable proposal from the South Australian Government.  These projects will build on the $72.5 million invested in ‘Waterproofing Northern Adelaide’ and ‘Water Proofing the South’ under the Water Smart Australia program which are scheduled to be completed by June 2010.

(b)	Under the Environmental and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the South Australian Government is currently undertaking an Environmental Impact Statement in regard to a temporary weir near Wellington in South Australia.  

(c)	Work is on-going by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to assess management options for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong.  Removing the barrages is one option being considered.

(d)	See answer to (a) above.

(e)	See answer to (a) above.

(f)	The Australian Government supports expeditious completion of all projects, noting that infrastructure projects necessarily take time to plan, design and construct.

(g)	In March 2008, the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council agreed to spend $6 million to pump water into Lake Albert to manage the impact of low water levels in Lake Albert in order to stabilise its acid sulfate soil problem.  Pumping is well underway.  Council also agreed in March to request a report on the condition of this icon site.  This request was fulfilled by the South Australian Murray-Darling NRM Board in time to be considered at Council’s subsequent meeting in May.  In May the Ministerial Council asked the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to develop risk management strategies for the Lower Lakes, with a final report requested by November.  Council also noted at this meeting that if dry conditions continued, it might be necessary, before its next scheduled meeting, to consider implementing other interim options.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	137	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance Division	
Topic:	Melbourne Water Supply	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Nash asked:
(a)	Does the Document titled ‘Labor’s national plan to tackle the water crisis. Election 2007. Policy Document Kevin Rudd MP Federal Labor Leader Anthony Albanese MP Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Water November 2007’ which states; The health of the rivers in the Murray Darling Basin is not negotiable, and their plight is urgent. Diminishing river flows in the Murray Darling Basin directly affect the health of the farm sector, the rural communities that rely on agriculture for their survival and the health of the river’s natural environment,’ accurately reflect the Government’s water policies?
(b)	Is the Government, department or Murray-Darling Commission aware of the Victorian Government’s project to pump water from the Goulburn River system out of the Murray Darling Basin to the Sugarloaf Reservoir, to augment Melbourne’s water supply know as the North-South Pipeline has a 110 gigalitre capacity?
(c)	How does taking 110 billion litres out of the Murray Darling Basin to flush toilets in Melbourne not diminish the river flows in the Murray Darling Basin? 
(d)	What affect will the Victorian Government’s decision to raid the water from the Murray Darling Basin have on water supplies for communities, farmers and the environment in the Murray Darling Basin?

Answer:
(a)	The quoted section is accurate.
(b)	Yes
(c)	The Victorian Government has indicated that water saved from irrigation improvements in Northern Victoria is to be shared equally between Melbourne Water, irrigators and the environment.    
(d)	See (c)

Outcome:	3	Question No:	138	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Reform Division	
Topic:	Water Initiative	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Nash asked:
(a)	On the 10th of May 2007 the Shadow Minister released a Media Release with one line stating a Labor Government will be “Properly implementing the 2004 National Water Initiative”, what does this mean? 
(b)	What is the Government now doing to ‘properly implement the 2004 National Water Initiative? Will the Government be with-holding funding from State’s who have not properly implemented the 2004 National Water Initiative.
(c)	Does the Government have any plans to compulsorily acquire properties or water licences in NSW or Queensland? 
(d)	Does the Government have any plans to buy properties in Queensland such as Cubby Station?

Answers:
(a)	The Australian Government will work cooperatively with the states and territories to implement the National Water Initiative.
(b)	The Council of Australian Governments met in Adelaide on 26 March 2008 and agreed on a work program that will develop concrete actions on high priority water management issues in both rural and urban Australia, including implementing the National Water Initiative. This work program will include accelerating commitments previously made under the National Water Initiative. 
The four priority areas are:
•	addressing overallocation and improving environmental outcomes 
•	enhancing water markets 
•	urban water reforms 
•	human resources, skills and information

On 29 April 2008 the Minister for Climate Change and Water, 
Senator the Hon Penny Wong announced the Government’s new $12.9 billion national plan ‘Water for the Future’, that aims to secure the long term water supply of all Australians.  

(c)	No. The Water Act 2007 prohibits compulsory acquisition of water entitlements. 

(d)	The Australian Government has committed to purchase up to $350 million in water entitlements from willing sellers in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin, as announced following the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 3 July 2008.  

Outcome:	3	Question No:	139	
Output:	3.1  	
Division/Agency:	Water Reform Division	
Topic:	Drought Contingency Plan 	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senators Birmingham and Senator Nash asked:
(a)	What has been the economic impact of the drought contingency plans on communities in the Murray Darling Basin?
(b)	Has the Department done any economic and social impact studies on the impact of the drought contingency plans on communities in the Murray Darling Basin? If not why not?

Answer:
(a) and (b) ABARE conducted a number of surveys in 2007-08 on behalf of the Department to determine the economic situation of various irrigation farming sectors across the Murray-Darling Basin for the 2006-07 year.  The Department has also engaged ABARE to continue the farm irrigation survey over the next year to include irrigation farm financial and physical information from the 2007-08 financial year.  This will provide a time series of irrigation farm financial information and provide insights on the impact of the current drought on irrigators.

Outcome:	3 	Question No:	140	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Reform Division	
Topic:	Wastewater	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Nash asked:
(a)	Is it Government policy to set a national target of recycling 30 per cent of wastewater by 2015.  How will this be achieved?  What are the estimated costs?  Will the target be compulsory?  How will the target be funded?  Does it apply to all water authorities and local councils across Australia?
(b)	Is it a fact that Melbourne currently sends 240 gigalitres of storm and waste water in to the ocean every year? 
(c)	How much stormwater and wastewater is known to be released into the ocean every year around Australia?  Please provide by state and/or capital city if possible.

Answers:
(a)	Labor’s national plan to tackle the water crisis commits to establish a national target of 30 per cent of waste water being recycled by 2015.  A consultancy has recently been undertaken to obtain updated national information on recycled water usage rates to inform implementation of the target and is currently under consideration.

(b)	and (c) According to Water Services Association of Australia and National Water Commission National Performance Report 2006-2007, effluent discharge to the ocean from each coastal capital city (calculated as total effluent discharge minus recycled water reclaimed) is:

Sydney - 479 GL
Brisbane - 80 GL
Darwin - 14 GL
Perth - 111 GL
Adelaide - 64 GL
Melbourne - 198 GL
Hobart - 8 GL

Information at this scale about storm water discharge is not available.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	141	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance Division	
Topic:	Pipeline Rockhampton to Gladstone	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham and Senator Nash asked:

At a Doorstop interview with Labor Candidate for Flynn, Chris Trevor, Auckland Hill, Gladstone on the 12th of November the Shadow Minister for Water stated “A Federal Labor Government will commit $20 million from our national Water Security Plan for Towns and Cities, to assist the construction of the pipeline from Rockhampton to Gladstone, which will be 110 km's in length and will provide some 30 gigalitres or 30 thousand million litres of water for Gladstone.”
(a)	What is the current status of this project? 
(b)	Has the department received any submissions for funding for this project? 
(c)	What is the current estimated cost of this project? 
(d)	When will the funding for the project be delivered and when will the project be completed? 
(e)	Which other projects will be funded by the Government with no departmental scrutiny? 

Answers:
(a) The planning and design phase is nearing completion. 
(b) Yes. 
(c) The total estimated cost of the complete project is $345 million. The total funding provided by the Commonwealth will be $20 million. 
(d) A funding agreement outlining the terms and conditions of funding was executed during 2007-08 and a $10 million payment was made.  Construction is expected to take two years.  The date of commencement of construction will depend on climate and drought circumstances. 
(e) The Department provides advice on all projects being funded by the Government. 

Outcome:	3	Question No:	142	
Output:	3.1 and 3.2	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Funding for water projects	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
What funding has been committed to each of the following projects, when, from which programs or allocations, when are they expected to be completed and what is the environmental or water saving benefit?
•	$80m for the Central Coast Pipeline, NSW
•	$4m for Delta Electricity in Lithgow to use recycled water
•	$160m for Desalination Plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf
•	$30m for Gnangara Mound Aquifer Recharge Project
•	$500,000 for the Aquatic Weed Harvester for the Hawkesbury Nepean River
•	$3m to upgrade Leichhardt Oval
•	$140,000 to help Lismore prepare for future floods at Browns Creek and South Lismore Levee
•	$250,000 for the Oberon Council’s water reuse scheme for timber mill
•	$50m for restoring Snowy River environmental flows
•	$20m for Tuggerah Lakes health
•	$12m to fund pipelines between Warren and Nyngan and return up to 2 billion litres to Murray-Darling Basin
•	$408m for the Western Corridor Recycling Project, Queensland
•	$124m further investment in Wimmera Mallee pipeline

Answer:
Requested details are provided at Attachment A.
The following two projects do not belong to this agency:-
•	$3m to upgrade Leichhardt Oval (Department of Health and Ageing)
•	$140,000 to help Lismore prepare for future floods at Browns Creek and South Lismore Levee (Attorney-General’s Department)

ATTACHMENT A
Program & Project	Committed funding / when	Year expected to be completed	Estimated Environmental or water saving benefit	
Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program	
Delta Electricity in Lithgow to use recycled water	Up to $4m. Negotiations are taking place with proponent.	Expected by end of 2010.	Estimated up to 1.8GL/yr	
Desalination Plant in upper Spencer Gulf	Up to $160m. Awaiting confirmation from proponents of project status.	Not yet confirmed.	Not yet determined but a capacity of 11 GL/yr has been proposed.	
Oberon Council’s water reuse scheme for timber mill.	Up to $0.250m. Negotiations are taking place with proponent.	Expected by end of 2008.	Estimated  up to 360ML/yr.	
Pipelines between Warren and Nyngan	Up to $12m.  Negotiations are taking place with proponent	Not yet confirmed.
	Estimated up to 4GL/yr	
Wimmera Mallee (Vic) – further investment.	Up to $124m if required to complete the project ($99m has been contracted to date)	2009	Estimated at 103 GL/yr.

	
Water Smart Australia	
Central Coast Pipeline	$80.3m
May 2007	2010	Augmentation of water supply	
Gnangara Mound aquifer recharge project	$34.3m
February 2007	2010	This commitment involves five projects. $19.4m for the Gnangara Mound Aquifer Recharge pilot project which will treat and inject to the aquifer up to an estimated 1.5 GL/yr.
$14.9 m for water planning projects in four catchments including Gnangara Mound, Southwest Groundwater, Collie and the Pilbara.	
Aquatic weed harvester for the Hawkesbury Nepean River	$0.5m
April 2008	2008	N/A	
Western corridor recycling project,  Queensland	$408m
April 2007	2008	Potential treatment and reuse of an estimated 84 GL/yr.
	
Caring for our Country	
Tuggerah Lakes Health	Up to $20m. Negotiations are taking place with proponents	2012-2013	N/A 	
Restoring the Balance in the Basin	
Restoring Snowy River Flows	$50m ($12.28m was contracted in
June 2008)	2012	Up to an estimated 212 GL/yr to increase flows in the Snowy River.	

Outcome:	3	Question No:	143	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	$50M purchase of water for Murray-Darling	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	What was meant by the Minister’s statement of 23 May 2008 concerning water buybacks, where she said the $50 million purchase of 35 gigalitres of water “means that Murray-Darling rivers will get a greater share as water becomes available”?
(b)	How will the $50 million of taxpayer money actually translate to environmental flows?
(c)	Will the $50 million help to improve flow through the Murray Mouth?  If so, by how much?
(d)	How will it help the health of the Coorong and the Lower Lakes?  By how much will flow into the Coorong and Lower Lakes be increased as a result of this purchase?
(e)	How much extra flow do you estimate will reach the Coorong, the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth as a result of the $3.1 billion water buyback?
(f)	Will the Government ever consider reselling to landholders the water rights it has purchased from them?
(g)	If so, how would such a plan work?  Who would get the first rights?  

Answers:
(a)	Water will become available as the transfers of ownership of water entitlements purchased in the 2007-08 purchase program are completed and allocations are progressively announced for these entitlements through the irrigation season.

(b)	The allocations available to the entitlements purchased in the 2007-08 program will be used for increased environmental flows. Increases in environmental flows will depend on allocations announced for entitlements that have been acquired from willing sellers.

(c)	Increases in environmental flows, including through the Murray mouth, will depend on allocations announced for entitlements that have been acquired from willing sellers. At the beginning of the 2008-09 irrigation season, these allocations are extremely low.

(d)	Increased environmental flows will help the health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes by increasing water levels, but the level of these flows is uncertain due to the limited water available across the whole system.

(e)	The amount of water available for environmental flows as a result of the $3.1 billion will depend on the final volume of entitlements purchased, the allocations announced for these entitlements, the level of inflows into the basin, the outcomes of improving efficiency and productivity and water use management in the Basin.

(f)	The Water Act 2007 allows the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to sell entitlements if water purchased with the proceeds will improve the capacity of the Commonwealth environmental water holdings to meet environmental watering objectives as required by the Act.

(g)	Currently there is no plan to sell water entitlements that have been purchased by the Government.

Outcome:	3	Question No: 	144	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance	
Topic:	Adelaide Parklands water recycling project	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	When will the $30.2 million Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands water recycling project commence?
(b)	When is work due to be completed?
(c)	What is the total cost?
(d)	How much are other levels of government putting in?
(e)	Will the Commonwealth contribute any extra funds if the cost of the project blows out?
(f)	Are there contracts in place for the purchase of the recycled water?  If so, what are the details?
(g)	Will the City of Adelaide have to pay for the water?  If so, how much?  Has the council agreed to this?
(h)	Will any revenue be paid to the Commonwealth to offset the $30 million cost of the project?
(i)	What volume and proportion of wastewater from this plant will be recycled under the project?  Has work been undertaken to see if this could be increased?
Answers:
(a)	- (d) The funding agreement is still being finalised.
(e)	Funding has been approved on the basis that the project will be viable with a once off Commonwealth contribution of $30.15 million.
(f)	No.  However there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the South Australian Water Corporation and the City of Adelaide.
(g)	Yes.  Pricing is a matter between the South Australian Water Corporation and the City of Adelaide.
(h)	No.
(i)	An estimated 2 gigalitres per year.  The project will increase wastewater reuse from the plant by approximately 20 percent. Yes there is potential to increase the use of recycled water as additional customers are identified.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	145	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Cotton and rice farmers	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Nash asked:
(a)	On February 19, 2007 ALP Member Bill Shorten stated in The Australian “It's time to bite the bullet on cotton and rice. The Prime Minister must show some leadership and buy water entitlements from cotton and rice farmers, compulsorily if necessary.” Is this government policy? 
(b)	What is the Government’s view of growing crops such as cotton and rice in Australia?

Answers:
(a)No. The Water Act 2007 prohibits the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements.

(b) The Government views the decision to grow these or any other crop as a business decision to be undertaken by individual farmers.  

Outcome:	3	Question No:	146	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance Division	
Topic:	National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	When will people be able to apply for rebates under the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative?
(b)	How will rebate recipients be selected? Is it first in, best dressed?
(c)	Will it also be means tested?
(d)	If residents apply in a financial year for which the funding allocated has run out, will funding be made available from following years?  If so, will further funds be allocated for the six years?  If not, why not?

Answer: 
(a) - (d)	The National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative is currently under development and further information will be announced during the second half of 2008.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	147	
Output:	3.1 and 3.2	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Water for the Future	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	What will the $400 million identified in Budget Paper 2, page 160, as “Water for the Future – taking early action” be spent on?
(b)	What was the $96.2m from the 2007-08 financial year spent on? Does it represent another program? If so, what program?
(c)	Have any grants already been allocated under this funding initiative?  If so, please detail the amounts, recipients and electorates.
(d)	From what program or programs was the 2011-12 funding allocated to this initiative cut?
Answers:
(a)	Water efficiency measures and buying water entitlements.
(b)	Water efficiency measures in the ‘Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure’ program and buying water entitlements in the ‘Restoring the Balance in the Basin’ program.  Refer Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2007-08, page 41 for $15.160 million for “National Plan for Water Security – Modernising Irrigation in Australia – Taking Early Action”, and Portfolio Supplementary Additional Estimates Statements 2007-08, pages 5 and 6 for $81.0 million increase in 2007-08 for “Water for the Future – Taking Early Action.  These two items add up to the $96.2 million for 2007-08 in Budget Paper 2, page 160. 
(c)	The $96.2m funding brought forward to 2007-08 was allocated to:-
•	$75 million contribution in 2007-08 to the Wimmera Mallee (Vic) pipeline project, part of a $99 million contract.  The recipient was the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment. The electorate is Mallee.
•	$6 million contribution to Water for Rivers, part of a $12.3m contract in 2007-08. The electorates are Gippsland, Eden-Monaro, Mallee, Wannon, Bendigo, Murray, McEwen, Indi, Ballarat, Farrer, Riverina, Hume, Fraser and Canberra.
•	The remaining $15.2 million was used to purchase water entitlements in 2007-08. Catchment areas where entitlements were purchased have been posted on the Department’s web site.  The web site structures information to protect the privacy and confidentiality of individual sellers. 
(d)	Funding was transferred between years of Water for the Future programs.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	148	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Water Buy back	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	With regard to the water buyback, can the Department provide a list indicating individual amounts purchased, date purchased, and whether the seller retains any entitlement?
(b)	Can the Department further outline what ‘stranded assets’ have occurred as a result of the buyback from these sellers?  What is the value of the stranded assets?
(c)	Has the Department completed a socio-economic demographic survey of regions which have been targeted for water buyback?
(d)	What cost will the reduced farm income have on ‘beyond the farm gate’ services?  How have farmers indicated funds will be used?
(e)	Has the Department offered or provided financial advice to sellers?  If so, at what cost and to whom?
(f)	What proportion of offers from farmers to sell were accepted by the Department?  What was the average price of offers?  What was the average price of agreed deals?  How many offers were above ‘market rates’?  How many offers were rejected before further assessments (to assess value of stranded assets etc) as part of the deal?  Did the Government focus purchases on over-allocated streams?
(g)	Can the Government provide advice on which tributaries will receive increased flows after the buyback?  Which sites will particularly benefit?  Have wetlands been given priority over other areas?
(h)	Who will cover the service charges to the water authorities as a result of the buyback?  With regard to the Foodbowl Modernisation Scheme, which the Rudd Government has indicated it will partially fund, who will own the ‘spurs’ through which the water runs to farms?
(i)	What advice has the Department given the Minister in relation to investment in on-farm infrastructure?  When was this advice given?

Answers:
(a)	As at 25 July 2008, the Government has finalised and settled the transactions for the purchase of five parcels of water entitlements. The date and volume purchased for each completed trade is available on the respective state government register. Details on the aggregate volume of the purchases that are being pursued by the Australian Government are currently available on the website of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. The Department does not have any data indicating whether the seller retains any entitlements as these may be held on other licences.

(b)	This information is not available to the Department.

(c)	The review of the water entitlement purchase program, currently underway, will look at the impact of the program on irrigation industries and rural communities. 

(d)	Sellers of water have a range of options for using the capital from the sale including reinvesting in more efficient irrigation infrastructure to improve the productivity and profitability of their farm enterprise.  The Department, when accepting sell offers, did not seek information on how sellers intended to use funds they obtained from the sale and therefore does not have information on the impact on ‘beyond farm gate’ services.

(e)	The department did not provide any financial advice to sellers, however sellers were directed to publicly accessible sources of information relating to the going market price for their water.

(f)	12% of offers received were accepted by the Department as meeting the value for money criteria of the tender. 

The average price per megalitre of received offers was:
a.	High Security - $3,154
b.	NSW General security and Vic. Low Reliability Water Share - $1,475

The average cost per megalitre of accepted offers was:
c.	High security - $2,124
d.	NSW General security and Vic. Low Reliability Water Share - $1,131

These figures include water entitlement purchases from different catchments across the Murray-Darling Basin. The actual prices paid for each entitlement type, will vary because of market factors such as the long term reliability of these water entitlements.
Further information is available on the Departmental website: www.environment.gov.au/index.html.

There were 733 offers received that were above the prices that were estimated to represent prevailing market prices.

All sell offers were assessed against their capacity to provide water for high value environmental assets and on achieving value for money. 

(g)	Purchases of entitlements have been in the Gwydir, Macquarie, Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Murray, Campaspe and Goulburn river systems. The increases in flows in these systems will depend on allocations announced for entitlements that have been acquired from willing sellers. Under the Water Act 2007, the Commonwealth environmental water holdings must be used to protect or restore environmental assets to give effect to relevant international agreements. This means that the sites to receive increased flows will include wetlands of international importance, as well as rivers and wetlands that support listed migratory and threatened species.

(h)	Service charges will be paid by the Commonwealth once the entitlement is transferred to the Commonwealth.

The decision on who will own the spurs through which the water runs to farms is a decision for the Victorian Government.

(i)	In May 2008, the Minister approved Stage 2 of the Pilot Projects program. The Department is currently assessing Stage 2 applications with a view to recommend projects for funding to the Minister later this year.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	149	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Reform Division	
Topic:	Murray Darling Basin Authority	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	When will the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority come into being?  
(b)	How will the Board be appointed?
(c)	What remuneration will be made to Board members?
(d)	How many Board members will there be?
(e)	Will the Board answer to the Minister for Water, or to the Minister for the Environment, or both?
(f)	Will the agency sit inside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts?
(g)	When will assessments for compensation for stranded assets be made?  How will these assessments be made and by whom?  What timeframe has been developed for this?  Will assessments for assets be made at market value before or after the sale of the water right?

Answers:
(a)	The Murray-Darling Basin Authority was established by the Water Act 2007 on 3 March 2008. 
(b)	The arrangements by which members will be appointed to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority are set out in the 3 July 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform.
(c)	The remuneration of Murray-Darling Basin Authority members will be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
(d)	Six, including the Chief Executive.
(e)	The Minister for Climate Change and Water.  
(f)	The Water Act 2007 is administered by the Minister for Climate Change and Water, and matters relating to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority are dealt with by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
(g)	The Government has committed to buy water entitlements from willing sellers.  The sellers will be responsible for meeting any termination fees due to irrigation water service providers as a consequence of the transaction.

Outcome:	3	Question No: 	150	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts	
Topic:	Desalination plant in Adelaide	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a) How much will the Commonwealth provide towards a desalination plant in Adelaide?  When is this funding being provided?  How much is the project estimated to cost?
(b) What contracts have been entered into for construction of the plant?
(c) Is the SA Government accountable to the Federal Government for how the money is spent? If so, how?
(d) What will the Government do to offset the greenhouse emissions from the desalination plant?
(e) How will desalination plants be included as part of an Emissions Trading Scheme?

Answers:
(a) The Government has indicated that it will provide funding for Adelaide’s desalination plant, subject to a suitable proposal from the South Australian Government.
(b) – (d) No funding agreement has been put in place.
(e)The Government released a Green Paper titled ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ on 16 July 2008.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	151	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance Division	
Topic:	Water recycling	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	Is the Minister considering any significant projects for stormwater harvesting, such as the $400 million Adelaide project proposed by the South Australian Opposition?
(b)	Will the Government provide funding for a major expansion of water recycling infrastructure?
(c)	Will the Government consider or rule out funding to upgrade the quality of recycled water?
(d)	Are there any plans to recycle wastewater for drinking?
(e)	How are projects under the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan selected?
(f)	Why is this Plan only for cities with populations of more than 50,000 people?
(g)	Minister Wong advised in a media release of 13 May 2008 that funds through this program would be “conditional on state and territory governments achieving agreed water reforms through the Council of Australian Governments”.  What are these “agreed water reforms”?
(h)	How will these state and territory governments be held accountable?  Will there be reporting?   Will the Federal Government monitor the States and Territories? If so, how will this occur?
(i)	Labor’s National Plan to tackle the Water Crisis election commitment document makes reference to the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan funding a 10% Water Tax Credit initiative.  Will such an initiative be included?  If so, how will this work?

Answers:
(a)	& (b) The Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ strategy includes the $1 billion Urban Water and Desalination Plan that will support desalination; recycling and stormwater harvesting projects. 
(c)	Projects will be considered on the basis of merit.
(d)	The introduction of recycled water into the drinking water supply is a decision for state and territory governments.  
(e)	Program Guidelines are currently being developed.
(f)	Water security for major centres was identified as a key priority for the Australian Government.
(g)	On 26 March 2008, the Council of Australian Governments commissioned the development of a comprehensive new work program of water reform.  Further details are available at www.environment.gov.au/water/action/coag.html. 
(h)	Commonwealth funding will be conditional on state and territory governments achieving agreed water reforms through COAG.  It is expected that the National Water Commission will assess state and territory performance against the National Water Initiative and agreed funding milestones.
(i)	Yes. The implementation details are being developed by the DEWHA in consultation with Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	152	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance Division	
Topic:	Centres of Excellence in Desalination	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:

(a)	Where will the Centres of Excellence in Desalination and Water Recycling be located?  How was this determined?  
(b)	What funding will be provided to each Centre?  What accountability mechanisms apply to each Centre?
(c)	What is the purpose of these Centres?  What will they actually achieve?

Answers:
(a)	Consistent with the Government’s policy commitment centres of excellence in desalination technology and water recycling will be located in Perth and Brisbane respectively. 
(b)	$20 million to each centre over five years. The administering organisation will be required to enter into a funding agreement with the Commonwealth Government.
(c)	The centres will help secure Australia’s water supply by providing facilities to researchers and industry to support the development of new technologies and practices for desalination and recycling. 

Outcome:	3	Question No:	153	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance Division	
Topic:	National Water Security Plan	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Birmingham asked:
(a)	What programs will be administered under the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns initiative? How has this money been allocated?
(b)	What has been administered under the $10 million spent in 2007-08?
(c)	Does the Government intend to provide a grants program under this initiative? If so, how will this work?  Will this be a competitive application process?

Answers:
(a)	The National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns will be funded in two stages.  In the first stage the Government has committed $104.5 million to 20 projects (Minister’s media release of 13 May 2008 “$254.8 Million in Water Security for Cities and Towns” refers).  The second stage of funding will be developed in consultation with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments.  The plan also provides $8.8 million for the Green Precincts Fund.

(b)	$10 million was provided to the Gladstone Area Water Board in 2007-08 as part of the Government’s commitment to contribute $20 million to the Rockhampton to Gladstone Pipeline Project. 

(c)	Grants will be provided for the 20 identified projects.  Implementation arrangements for the second stage of funding will be developed in consultation with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	154	
Output:	3.1	
Division/Agency:	Water Governance 	
Topic:	Latrobe Aquifer	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice	

Senator Fielding asked:
(a)	Yarram farmers dependent on the Latrobe aquifer still have to fund 50% of the disadvantage they suffer from falling water levels. Family First appreciates that the government has committed $3.6 million to fund 50% of the government contribution to the problem, but notes that the Victorian Government wants the Federal Government to provide 80%.  What work will the Department undertake with the Victorian government to resolve this disagreement?
(b)	Will the Department commit to resolving this disagreement with the Victorian government for the benefit of the Gippsland farmers?
(c)	Please provide an update on where negotiations are on providing compensation to farmers and when that money will be provided, including any work on a groundwater management plan.
(d)	Please provide a copy of the report on the Latrobe aquifer which led to the announcement of the $3.6 million assistance for farmers.

Answers:
(a)	The Government is working co-operatively with Victoria to finalise a joint package to assist the farmers of Gippsland impacted by falling groundwater levels of the Latrobe Aquifer.  
(b)	See answer to (a).
(c)	For the first part of this question please refer to answer (a).  In relation to the work on a groundwater management plan the Commonwealth and Victorian Government’s jointly funded Water Smart Australia Sustainable Groundwater Management project includes provision for Latrobe Aquifer hydrogeological and monitoring investigations that will inform the development of a groundwater management plan for the region. 
(d)	As the report was commissioned by the Victorian Government, any decision on its release rests with the Victorian Government.

Outcome:	3	Question No:	156	
Output:	3.1 	
Division/Agency:	Water Efficiency Division	
Topic:	Farm efficiencies	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senators Birmingham and Nash asked:
(a)	In what electorates are the nine ‘on-farm efficiency pilot projects which have been invited to submit more information located and provide a brief outline of each project, estimated cost, estimate water savings and when they will be funded?
(b)	Is it still the government’s intention to invest $1.635 billion in ‘on-farm efficiencies’? If not, why not and how much are they going to invest?
(c)	Is the Government maintaining the principal established by the former government that all irrigation modernising projects such as the on-farm and in system investments  would share the water savings achieved 50:50 between irrigators and the Government?  If not what is the government’s position on sharing water savings between the Government and irrigators?

Answers:
(a)	The nine applicants invited to submit further information are located in the electorates of Murray, Riverina, Barker, O’Connor, Parkes, Farrer, Calare and New England. Details regarding specific project activities, expected cost and water savings cannot be provided as applicants are yet to submit a full funding proposal for consideration. Funding is expected to be provided to successful applicants in the 2008/09 financial year.

(b)	$5.8 billion has been allocated under the Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program of the $12.9 billion ‘Water for the Future’ initiative for water efficiency measures including upgrading irrigation infrastructure.  The On-Farm (Pilot Projects) Program is part of the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program.  Consistent with the Council of Australian Governments Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray Darling Basin Reform signed on 4 July, the Australian Government has agreed in principle to provide up to $3.7 billion for significant water projects in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, subject to due diligence assessment of these projects These projects include a range of on-farm activities.  The Australian Government will also consider Irrigation Water Provider priority project proposals that incorporate on-farm components.

(c)	Water sharing requirements remain unchanged.