Subject: Adelaide River TAP — proposed next steps and a joint session
[SALUTATION]
Thanks again for the work that has gone into the Part A draft and for the way the TAP has engaged with a tricky brief and our initial responses. We would like to meet with you to map the next phase of work in a way that builds on the TAP has done and responds to the gaps and cautions flagged in the draft report.
We suggest a joint session with the TAP, and on our side Simon and Phillipa as Directors of Projects and Water Management. The aim is simple: land a shared path that helps the TAP finish well and gives the Minister the policy-relevant information he needs to make a decision on the Plan.
To set this up well, we propose two steps:
1. Regulatory/context briefing (dept → TAP).
We’ll provide a focused briefing on the NT’s regulatory settings and what the water allocation plan needs to deliver: wet‑season take policy, how ESY is determined, safeguard options (e.g., triggers, thresholds, drought rules), licensing pathways, and how the background report sits with the plan and public consultation. We can circulate a short note ahead of the meeting and walk through it at the start.
2. Work program discussion (co‑design).
Building on the TAP’s own observations about model limits, data sparseness and confidence levels, we’d like to explore adjustments to scope, methods and timelines. The intent is to keep the TAP’s independence intact while improving the fit‑for‑purpose link to the plan. Topics we’d propose for the agenda:
- Scope and deliverables: align the TAP’s final advice with the Minister’s background report (so the two documents don’t diverge); agree a concise set of hydrologic/eco‑salinity metrics and risk statements that the plan can actually use.
- Elicitation approach: move to a more structured expert‑judgement method for the remaining assessments and re‑elicitation, with calibration questions and pooled results that can be reused in later rounds if needed.
- Interface with modelling: confirm what the current model can and can’t support, and identify light‑touch analyses that can be run within time (e.g., regime‑based comparisons and simple sensitivity checks) to answer the panel’s priority questions and further model runs.
- Timeline options: discuss a revised schedule that allows a short public‑consultation package before the full Ministerial submission next March/April, without locking dates today.
- Resourcing: if the above implies more TAP time or CSIRO effort, we can look at a budget variation and a brief addendum to the existing terms.
None of this changes the TAP’s role. It’s about making sure your advice drives plan design (safeguards included), informs implementation and monitoring, and reads across cleanly to the background report. It also responds to the concerns in the draft about data and confidence, rather than working around them.
If that sounds sensible, could you please suggest times next week for a 60–90 minute meeting? We’ll send the regulatory note in advance and are happy to speak with the TAP Chair beforehand so the session is comfortable and productive for them.
Appreciate your partnership on this.
[CLOSE]