Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate that outline from the minister about where we're at now. It sort of broadly lines up with the coalition's understanding of the rushed and botched process off the back of a fairly protracted committee process.

To that end, I'll go back to the supplementary explanatory memorandum that's been tabled by the government in relation to the consequential amendments. The minister talked about having worked closely with Minister Bowen and other entities. I presume the Australian Greens were in there. I'm trying to understand what has been proposed here. We have the backdrop of the cost-of-living crisis that this country is engulfed in at the moment. The people who frequent the public gallery to observe debate here are probably disappointed. Lack of supply has an impact on the price of gas. We talk about certainty about what will be provided as a result of this bill.

The water trigger that we are being asked to pass with an hour and five minutes of debate remaining was only tabled at 5.52, less than two hours ago. I'm wondering what consultation has occurred with industry. I know we get derided by the Australian Greens political party for talking about that—

given, as Senator Scarr points out by way of interjections, the jobs they create and the resources they provide to the economy. As far as I can recall from the committee hearings I attended and the evidence I read, this was not actually contemplated by the Senate committee. What consultation was undertaken with industry about these consequential amendments that were moved by way of very vague motion? Which projects does the government know will be caught up and what modelling has been undertaken around the impact of the passage of these extraneous amendments?