Wednesday, 9 May 2012
I, and also on behalf of Senator Birmingham, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(ii) the modelling of these inflows covers a 114 year period from 1895 to 2009,
(iii) the MDBA has not used the past 2 years of data on inflows in calculating the average inflows into the MDB as listed in the draft basin plan,
(iv) the past 2 years have seen record rainfall in the Murray Darling,
(v) the MDBA has acknowledged that including the 2010-12 river inflow data would change inflow calculations by 0.13 per cent or 32 gigalitres of water, and
(vi) the MDBA has stated that 'long term average inflows do not simply translate into estimates of sustainable diversion limits';
(b) calls on the Government to ensure that the final basin plan is based on the most up to date data and the best available science consistent with the requirements of the Water Act 2007; and
(c) orders that there be laid on the table by 17 May 2012:
(i) annual data on the modelled inflows into the Murray Darling from 1895 to 2011,
(ii) any MDBA advice and assessments about how this data is used to calculate sustainable diversion limits,
(iii) any MDBA advice about how historical usage in different regions has been used to calculate sustainable diversion limits, and
(iv) any other information held by the Government which explains the methodology used in formulating modelled inflows.
I circulated an amendment to this motion back in March and I seek leave to move the amendment.
Leave not granted.
I ask that we put part (a) of this motion separately to part (b) and part (c), as has been done under your direction in the past. I seek leave for the chamber to make a decision on part (a) separately to parts (b) and (c), which could be taken together.
We will put them separately. Just to clarify for senators, Senator Hanson-Young has requested—it is within her right to do so and permission has been granted in the past—to split the motion moved by Senator Joyce. Leave was denied for the amendment. We are now back to the substantive motion 740 and we will put parts (a), (b) and (c) separately. So the first question is that part (a) be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Order! I am going to ring the bell for four minutes rather than one minute. This was originally presumed to be a 'mickey' division. I will have the bells rung for a further four minutes.
Senator Brown, I accept your admonishment. That is correct.
The question now is that notice of motion No. 740 part (b) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that notice of motion No. 740 part (c) be agreed to.