Proposed Basin Plan consultation report

Basin Plan implementation

145.Issue

Submissions sought greater clarity as to how the Basin Plan would be implemented, particularly between now and 2019 when SDLs commence. Submissions also sought greater clarity as to how the wider reform elements being progressed by the Australian Government and Basin states would be achieved. In particular, clarity was sought in relation to the:

• 
  relative balance of future water recovery efforts on infrastructure investment versus water buybacks
  
• 
  conduct of buybacks in terms of product mix, location and timing
  
• 
  availability of assistance for the wider community in most-vulnerable areas.
  

‘Where water recovery is likely to have an impact, Commonwealth Government support for industry development assistance and economic diversification must be provided’

RESPONSE

MDBA is working with the Australian and Basin state governments to develop holistic implementation arrangements for the Basin Plan and associated water reforms.

Implementing the Basin Plan will involve a wide range of activities by different parties, at different times and at different scales, from Basin-wide to local or valley scale. Successful implementation of the Plan will require governments, agencies and communities to work together and understand the various requirements and obligations under the Plan.

In addition to the elements of the Basin Plan itself, there are numerous associated commitments and complementary activities that will support implementation of the Plan and help achieve the Basin Plan goals. These include commitments to community involvement and localism, the development of new knowledge, improvements to information and science (including continued socioeconomic assessments), and the review of river operations and works and measures to feed into a review of the SDLs.

In relation to specific issues of the relative balance of buybacks versus infrastructure, the conduct of buybacks, and the availability of assistance for the wider community in most vulnerable areas, these are the lead responsibility of the Australian Government.

146.Issue

It was submitted that roles, responsibilities and legal obligations in the proposed Basin Plan, including the consequences of non-compliance and administrative costs of implementation, were unclear, particularly for the Basin state governments.

‘Implementation of the Basin Plan will result in increased planning, compliance, monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements. While the costs associated with these increased requirements are currently difficult to accurately quantify, they are expected to be substantial’

RESPONSE

In addition to the proposed Basin Plan, MDBA is working with Basin states to prepare an implementation strategy, a compliance strategy and a range of complementary guidelines. Together, these will help to clarify the roles and responsibilities of all parties in implementing the Basin Plan.

MDBA is also preparing a regulation impact statement (RIS) to provide to the Australian Government Water Minister along with the Basin Plan. The RIS will contain additional information about the environmental, social and economic implications of the Basin Plan for the Minister to consider when making his decision on adoption of the Basin Plan. The RIS is being prepared in consultation with the Australian Government and Basin states. As part of considering the overall costs and benefits of the Basin Plan, the RIS will include information about the administrative costs of implementing the Plan.

2012-2019 timeline

147.Issue

Submitters commented on the 2012-19 pathway timeline, including the review of SDLs in 2015, with some approving of the timeline’s length and others expressing concern that it was either too long or too short to allow successful adaptation and adjustment to changed water management requirements.

The opinion that the timeline was too long was generally expressed with the view that this timeline would hinder the timely achievement of environmental outcomes. One submitter commented that:

‘implementation lasting until 2019 is far too slow. By this time, irrigators may be disadvantaged, drought may have recurred and governments could have come and gone.’

The opinion that the timeline was too short was generally expressed with the view that more scientific or local information was needed to inform (SDLs) or that communities would need more time to adapt to the Basin Plan.

RESPONSE

Australian Government and Basin state Ministers have agreed that SDLs in the Basin Plan should not be enforced until 2019. The 2019 commencement date will give communities time to adjust to the new arrangements; and the Australian Government time to meet its commitment to bridge the gap.

It is estimated that by 2015 the Australian Government will have completed about three-quarters of the water recovery through water entitlement purchases and investment in infrastructure. This provides sufficient time after 2015 for MDBA to propose an amendment to the Basin Plan by 2017 to amend the SDL, for water resource plans to be finalised before SDLs come into effect in 2019 and for the Australian Government to complete any remaining water recovery that is necessary between 2015 and 2019.

While a later review point could allow more time to implement works and measures and similar proposals for SDL adjustments, this would not allow enough time for the Australian Government to complete any remaining water recovery before SDLs came into effect in 2019.

The pathway process over the next seven years will include opportunities for consultation and adaptive management, while also providing states and communities with sufficient time to prepare and adjust.

148.Issue

It was submitted that the timing of the 2015 review of SDLs would mean that the reviews of the EWP and WQSMP, which are not due until 2017, would not be able to contribute to the review of SDLs.

Some of these submissions also expressed concern that the timing of the 2015 review might not align with the states’ development of water resource plans, and as a consequence those water resource plans would not be consistent with the Basin Plan as it might be amended in 2017.

RESPONSE

MDBA supports the intent to ensure any available information about the effectiveness of the EWP and WQSMP helps inform the 2015 SDL review. The timing of the five-yearly EWP and WQSMP reviews is unable to be amended as it is set by section 22(1) item 13 of the Act. However, through the Basin Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Program, MDBA intends to use any information available by 2015 about the Basin Plan’s effectiveness to inform the 2015 SDL review. This would include, but not be limited to, information relating to the effectiveness of EWP and WQSMP. 

MDBA will aim to work collaboratively with the states to ensure that timelines for monitoring and reporting, as well as the development of water resource plans, align as much as practicable.