Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  41
Division/Agency:	Land, Water and Coasts Division
Topic:	Water
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)	In relation to water policy, what is the division of policy responsibilities between PM&C and Dept of Agric Forestry and Fisheries and DEH?

(b)	What is the framework for the Government’s policy on water?  Is there an inter-departmental committee or working group to co-ordinate policy with Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Department of Environment & Heritage?

(c)	What is the role of Malcolm Turnbull, the PM’s Parl Sec, in relation to water policy?  Does he receive briefings from DEH, or is he involved in other ways?

(d)	On 25 January, after being appointed Parl Sec, Turnbull said "The federal government is committed to a more sustainable approach to the use of water and that includes a greater emphasis on recycling”. What is the Government’s policy on recycled water for use in urban areas?  Is DEH involved in any way in developing Govt policy on recycled water?

(e)	Toowoomba’s dams are down to 27%. The local Council have a proposal before the National Water Commission for funding assistance from the Smart Water fund for water recycling. Will the Government support this proposal. If not, why not? 

(f)	What is the policy and funding decision making process for proposals such as those from Toowoomba Council?  If the local community appears divided and the relevant local Council strongly supports it, what assessments does the Federal Government make in deciding whether to co-fund it?

(g)	Given NWI objective 6 (to ensure healthy, safe and reliable water supplies and encourage the re-use and recycling of wastewater), if the science shows it is healthy and safe, what other considerations are being made?

(h)	Is DEH involved in any way in the assessment of water quality for recycling?

Answer/s:
(a)	The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) is responsible for whole-of-government water policy coordination and policy advice to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, and takes a particular interest in matters relating to water markets.
	The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) has a broad responsibility in relation to water matters and in particular those issues being progressed by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH). DAFF also has responsibility for the water resource accounting, measuring, metering, information and reporting commitments under the National Water Initiative (NWI).
	DEH leads on environmental water matters and the urban water reform actions of the NWI, in particular those being progressed by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC). DEH also has responsibility for Ramsar (international wetlands) commitments, administration of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Australian Government Water Fund (AGWF) Community Water Grants scheme which is administered in conjunction with DAFF.

(b)	The Australian Government is committed to improving the management of Australia’s water resources and led the development of the NWI, which provides a blueprint for reform of Australia’s water management for the next decade and beyond. The Australian Government’s NWI implementation plan, which is currently with the National Water Commission (NWC) for accreditation, outlines the Government’s involvement in the implementation of the NWI. 
	Yes, water policy is coordinated through the Water Policy Group, chaired by PM&C and including senior executives representing PM&C, DAFF and DEH.

(c)	The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has responsibility for those aspects of water policy which lie within the Prime Minister’s portfolio. The Parliamentary Secretary receives briefings in relation to his particular responsibilities.

(d)	Water reform in the urban sector has been a significant element of the Council of Australian Governments Water Reform Agenda since 1994. The next phase of urban water reforms relevant to water recycling, as identified in the NWI, include: pricing policies to stimulate the efficient use of recycled water and stormwater; and measures to stimulate water sensitive urban design.
	Current Australian Government policy and initiatives in the area of urban water use and recycling include: implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy to assist jurisdictions to provide water of appropriate quality across the water cycle; and support through relevant Ministerial Councils for the development of national guidelines on water recycling and water sensitive urban design guidelines.

(e)	The Australian Government is currently considering Toowoomba City Council’s funding application to support the Water Futures Toowoomba – Water Recycling Project as part of the $2 billion AGWF. The NWC is the body responsible for assessing and recommending projects for assistance under the Fund.
(f)	As above. Projects are assessed by the NWC against nine criteria, including social/community impact, outlined in the publicly available programme guidelines. Toowoomba City Council outlined a community consultation strategy as part of its project submission which included the commencement of direct interaction with the local community.

(g)	Projects are assessed by the NWC against nine criteria, including social/community impact, outlined in the publicly available programme guidelines. The NWC recommends projects for assistance under the AGWF.

(h)	The assessment of water quality for recycling is largely a matter for state environment and health agencies. The level of assessment depends on the end use of the recycled water. Local government may also have a role in assessment, especially with large councils. Accordingly DEH does not get involved with such assessment except if a recycling scheme is referred to DEH under the EPBC Act.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  42
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Reef Water Quality
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)	Why did the Minister accredit the Fitzroy Basin natural resource management plan when that plan fails to set measurable water quality targets? Is this consistent with the accreditation guidelines for regional natural resource management?

(b)	On what scientific basis does the NRM group believe its water quality targets framework will deliver water quality outcomes consistent with the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan?

(c)	What progress has been made by the Fitzroy Basin Association to develop numeric nutrient load targets for protecting Great Barrier Reef water quality?  

(d)	Does the Minister consider the Fitzroy Basin Association’s aspirational water quality target - no net loss in regional water quality by 2050 – an environmentally responsible target? 

(e)	Does the Minister consider a target that endorses impaired water quality for a further 45years (i) an aspirational target that reflects views held by the Australian and international community (ii) a target consistent with the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan?

(f)	Does the Government endorse the Fitzroy Basin Association’s aspirational target for reef water quality?

(g)	Is the Minister aware of the body of research undertaken by the Coastal CRC for the Fitzroy region? 

(h)	Do other sub-catchments of the Great Barrier Reef benefit from a similar body of coastal science? If so, which catchments? 

(i)	On 28 November 2005 you announced preparation of water quality improvement plans for a series of Great Barrier Reef sub-catchments. Why to date are no such plans being developed within the jurisdiction of the Fitzroy Basin Association? Have you invited the Association to develop such a plan? If not, why not? What is the regional NRM group’s reason for not developing water quality improvement plans? 

(j)	What in the Government’s view is an acceptable timeframe for achieving sustainable nutrient load targets for the Great Barrier Reef?

(k)	When will the Government require the Fitzroy Basin Association to develop pollutant load targets for the reef catchments within its jurisdiction? What incentives is the Government employing to encourage the Association to develop nutrient load targets for the Reef?

Answer/s:
(a)	In the case of regional Natural Resource Management Plans in the reef catchments, Ministers accredited plans which provide a process to set interim water quality targets within a specified time-frame. This is consistent with the accreditation guidelines for regional natural resource management.

(b)	The Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA) has sought technical advice from relevant Queensland agencies and the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Coastal Zone Management.

(c)	The FBA has been undertaking modelling of management actions such as ground cover increases and reduced nutrient application and run-off to assist in determining achievable load targets. The Association has a policy of community involvement in target setting and believes it will be in a position to quantify water quality targets by the end of 2006 following a period of community consultation. 

(d)	Regional bodies have been requested to set realistically achievable targets that take account of the magnitude and scale of Natural Resource Management challenges in their regions.

(e)	(i) The accredited Plans contain targets that respect the views of regional communities; (ii) The Reef Water Quality Protection Plan acknowledges that arresting and reversing the decline in water quality in the reef lagoon will be a lengthy process, requiring the ongoing cooperation of governments, industry and the community. 

(f)	Ministers have accredited the Plan containing this aspirational target. Accreditation is in effect an agreement between the Commonwealth, relevant State/Territory Government, and the regional body that, at a particular point in time, a regional plan is sufficiently comprehensive and based on an inclusive community process so as to provide a sound basis on which investments may be made.

(g)	Specifics relating to the outputs and performance of CRCs falls within the purview of the Minister for Education, Science and Technology. The Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) is aware of research outputs from the CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management having direct application to a range of Natural Resource Management issues. 

(h)	Many of the outputs of the Coastal CRC are intended to have broad application beyond central Queensland, having a charter that encompasses the coastal zone research throughout Australia. Other Queensland coastal regions therefore also benefit from its research findings and management tools. All regional bodies have ensured, through having expert Board members, technical advisory panels and partnerships with research organisations and/or government agencies, that they have access to appropriate technical advice.

(i)	The Reef Water Quality Protection Plan action D4 states: “Promote development of Local Water Quality Improvement Plans to local governments and Regional NRM Bodies in high-risk high-priority catchments and give priority to their development and implementation where catchment communities have an interest and capacity to develop plans of a suitable standard” (italics added).

	The Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) wrote to the Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA) on 22 July 2005 offering the FBA the opportunity to be included in the Coastal Catchments Initiative (CCI). The FBA replied that under the Natural Heritage Trust Extension (NHT 2) and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) the FBA has already developed what is in their view the equivalent of a water quality improvement plan for the Fitzroy Basin – the Central Queensland Strategy for Sustainability - 2004 and Beyond. The FBA also wrote that even with CCI funding it would not be able to develop a Water Quality Improvement Plan any better or faster than its current resources allows. 

	At this point in time FBA does not have the interest or capacity to undertake a Water Quality Improvement Plan, however DEH continues to discuss with the FBA how its current program could be integrated into the CCI program.

(j)	For the regions which border the Reef (Burdekin Dry Tropics, Wet Tropics, Mackay Whitsunday and Burnett Mary), Natural Resource Management Plans have been accredited by Ministers which include management action targets. The plans require regions to develop interim end-of-river water quality targets this year. The Government is working in several key Reef catchments to develop nutrient load targets within the next two years through the Coastal Catchment Initiative. 

(k)	The Australian and Queensland governments are urging all reef catchment regional bodies to complete the process of developing interim water quality targets as soon as practicable. To be credible, the targets must be based on the best available scientific information and need to be set in concert with the development comprehensive monitoring regime, so that trends in water quality are discernible over time. Following the recent successful completion of a NHT-funded project to improve catchment models, Regions are now better able to predict the effects of land-use changes on water quality outcomes in their catchments of concern.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  43
Division/Agency:	Land, Water and Coasts Division
Topic:	Coastal policy
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)	On 24 July 2005, the Minister suggested he was going to strip local councils and State Governments of coastal planning powers. When will that legislation be introduced?  Will a policy statement be released?  If so, what is the timeframe for that?
(b)	Has the Government produced any new policy material that backs up the Minister’s stated concern for our coasts?
(c)	Could you advise what action the Government has taken to implement its 2001 election promise to develop a national coastal policy?
(d)	Is the Government looking to establish a national action plan on coastal issues?  If not, why not?
(e)	At what point would the Government consider legislative or regulatory measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef from catchment pollution?

Answers:
(a) and (b) This is a misrepresentation. The Local Government and Planning Ministers Council have been considering issues of infrastructure and related needs arising in communities affected by rapid population growth.

(c)	The Framework for a National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management was agreed by all jurisdictions including local government in October 2003.

(d)	The Australian Government is working with state and territory and local governments on a range of important coastal issues.

(e)	The Government is working with the Queensland government, and with local government, industry groups, landholders, the community and other stakeholders, to protect the Great Barrier Reef from land-based pollutants. 

The Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (the Plan) is aimed at addressing diffuse pollution from broadscale land use. The Plan provides for actions to minimise pollutants from diffuse sources and reduce the entry of those pollutants to the Reef. 

The Plan has the goal of halting and reversing the decline in water quality entering the Reef within 10 years. 

As the Plan is in the early stages of implementation it would be premature to consider legislative or regulatory measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef from catchment pollution. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  44
Division/Agency:	Land, Water and Coasts Division
Topic:	Sea Change Taskforce
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)	Can you describe the Department’s involvement in the work of the National Sea Change Taskforce, if any?  Please provide details.
(b)	Are there any formal coordination arrangements between DOTARS and DEH in relation to the work of the Sea Change Taskforce?

Answers:
(a)	On 10 February 2006, the Department participated in a workshop that was organised by the National Sea Change Taskforce. The workshop brought together officials from the planning and environment departments of the Australian and state governments, to explore common issues relating to the social, economic and environmental impact of coastal growth. 

	On 24 February 2006, the National Sea Change Taskforce gave a presentation to the Intergovernmental Coastal Advisory Group, which is a sub-committee of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and is chaired by the Department.

	The Department is sponsoring the first National Sea Change Conference which will be held in Port Douglas on 3 - 6 April 2006. The conference will discuss the impact of population growth and tourism on the coast. Delegates are expected to include representatives of coastal councils, state and Australian government agencies and key research organisations. Officers from the Department will be attending.

(b)	No. However, DOTARS has been kept informed of the Portfolio’s interest in the environmental impact of coastal growth.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  45
Division/Agency:	Land, Water and Coasts Division
Topic:	Sea Change taskforce
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
In an article in the Australian Financial Review on 14 January, Alan Stokes, the Executive Director of the National Sea Change Taskforce, indicated that there would be a workshop on 10 February, bringing together 25 senior officials from state and territory planning and environment departments, as well as high-ranking federal representatives.
(a)	Was DEH involved in this workshop? 
(b)	If so, which officers attended? 
(c)	What were the outcomes of this workshop and what implications do they have for the Commonwealth Government?

Answer/s:
(a)	Yes

(b)	Five officers of the Department attended the workshop. These staff represented the Land, Water and Coasts Division; the Natural Resource Management Programmes Division; and the Australian Greenhouse Office. 

(c)	The Australian government is continuing to develop policy on coastal protection. The implications of the workshop outcomes will be considered as part of that process.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  46
Sub Outcome:	
Division/Agency:	Land, Water and Coasts Division 
Topic:	Environmental Flows in the Darling
Hansard Page ECITA:	135

Senator Siewert asked:

(a).	You answered a question on notice of mine on environmental flows in the Darling. In answer to one of my questions, you said that the environmental flows in the Darling have not been fully determined because New South Wales and Queensland were developing water sharing plans. Another goes into more detail. What is the progress on New South Wales developing their water sharing plans?

(b).	My understanding—and I do not know much about it; someone has just mentioned it to me—is that there has been a case with the EDO and that New South Wales has brought in some additional legislation. I do not know a thing about it. I am wondering how it affects the planning process.

Answer/s:
(a).	As indicated at the hearing, there have been no major developments since the answer provided in December 2005.

(b).	The case to which the Senator refers may relate to an appeal by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW (represented by the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office), challenging the validity of the Water Sharing Plan for the Gwydir Regulated River Water Source 2003. The case was dismissed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in February 2005. Any questions about its affect on the NSW planning process would need to be directed to NSW Government authorities. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  51
Division/Agency:	Land, Water and Coasts Division
Topic:	Water Quality Improvement Plans (Ref to Nov 2005 QoN 51)
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Siewert asked:	
(a)	Have any water quality improvement plans now been finalised?
(b) 	If so, which ones?
(c)	If not, when is completion expected?
(d)	How much funding has been allocated to developing these plans?

Answer/s:
(a) & (b)	No
(c) & (d)	See table below:

Location	Expected WQIP Completion Date	WQIP Funding Amounts
(GST exclusive)
$	
Moreton Bay (Qld)	December 2006	240,000	
Mossman & Daintree Rivers (Qld)	Draft plan received, final expected December 2006	150,000	
Wet Tropics (Qld)	June 2008	285,000	
Burdekin Dry Tropics (Qld)	June 2008	295,000	
Mackay Whitsunday (Qld)	June 2008	600,000	
Burnett Mary (Qld)	June 2008	652,000	
Myall and Wallis Lakes (NSW)	June 2008	297,500	
Derwent Estuary (Tas)	August 2006	272,727	
Peel Inlet & Harvey Estuary (WA)	December 2006	195,000	
Port Waterways (SA)	August 2006	277,067	
Port Phillip Bay/Western Port (Vic)	June 2008	450,000