Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (10), (11), (25) and (26) on sheet 5361:

(10)  Clause 44, page 61 (lines 1 to 3), omit subparagraph (3)(b)(ii).

(Amendment (11) is an alternative to amendment (10))

(11)  Clause 44, page 61 (line 12), omit subparagraph (5)(b)(i), substitute:

                   (i)    items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 or 10 of the table in subsection 22(1); or

(25)  Clause 175, page 167 (line 29), after “directions”, insert “, which must be consistent with the objects of this Act,”.

(26) Clause 175, page 168 (line 13), at the end of subclause (2), add:

            ; or    (e) those aspects of the Basin Plan excluded from Ministerial direction under subsection 44(5).

The Greens oppose clause 38 and clause 62 in the following terms:

(9)    Clause 38, page 56 (lines 8 to 18), TO BE OPPOSED.

(13)  Clause 62, page 75 (lines 9 to 19), TO BE OPPOSED.

Again, I am not going to drag the chamber through the arguments about the independence of the authority, which I mentioned in my contribution to the second reading debate on the bill. These amendments specifically relate to the independence of the authority. They address concerns about the level of ministerial intervention in the operations of the authority, which is intended to be, as we understand it, an independent decision-making body, operating on the basis of the best available science. We believe the amendments address ongoing concerns about the potential politicisation of the basin planning process.

In moving these amendments, I would like to clarify some of the issues that I raised in the briefing we had. When the minister reports back to parliament, I want to clarify the issue of where they are following or diverging from the advice of the authority. During the discussions around the development of this legislation, public statements were made on when the minister would be reporting to parliament. From what I have been told and from reading certain documents, I understand that, where the minister diverges from advice given on policy and where the minister directs on the basin plan, that advice will be tabled in parliament but that where that advice is about finances it will not be. Is that a correct understanding?