Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (4) on sheet BN252 as circulated together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (4) on sheet BN252:

(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 11), at the end of subsection 23A(2), add:

; and (d) a requirement for the Authority not to propose an adjustment under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) without:

(i) inviting members of the public to make submissions to the Authority on the proposed adjustment; and

(ii) providing a reasonable amount of time for those submissions to be made and considered by the Authority.

(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 20), omit "is adopted", substitute "may be adopted".

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 9 (lines 12 to 18), omit subsection 23B(6), substitute:

(6) As soon as practicable after receiving the amendment, the Minister must:

  (a) consider the amendment; and

  (b) either:

     (i) adopt, in writing, the amendment; or

     (ii) give the Authority notice, in writing, that the Minister has decided not to adopt the amendment.

  Note: If a long term average sustainable diversion limit for the water resources of a particular water resource plan area (or a particular part of those water resources) is amended, the long term annual diversion limit for those water resources is also amended (see table item 7 of the table in subsection 22(1)).

(4) Schedule 1, item 13, page 9 (lines 28 to 32), omit the item.

I had an opportunity in my summing up to explain the reasons for these amendments. I do not propose to add to it.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The good part of the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill is that it allows environmental works and measures to be counted in such a way as to mean that the pressure on farmers, farm communities and regional communities is diminished whilst achieving our environmental outcomes. The bad part of this bill was that it removed ministerial, and potentially parliamentary, scrutiny from the Basin Plan. That scrutiny did exist, contrary to what the minister said, under section 44(3), which gave the minister a power to act. That is now being effectively retained and we have put that forward and the government has adopted it. We are happy that the parliament is now sovereign again.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.