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

I must admit I am struggling to understand where the Commonwealth is coming from on this issue. Having said that, I am also a little bit concerned about the coalition’s amendment. I have paid close attention to what the irrigators council have been saying. They are worried about this amendment because it means that climate change will not be considered new knowledge. They want climate change as new knowledge. My concern is that climate change is a reality, and it is going to have a real impact. I am trying to weigh up the fact that we need to make sure we give effect to and do not override the commitments that were made in clause 46 of the National Water Initiative, but I do not want to go so far as to say, ‘This clause kicks in; climate change becomes new knowledge.’ I want to maintain that balance between climate change and new knowledge. As I understand it, the irrigators’ concern is where the boundary between climate change and new knowledge kicks in. I want to understand if this impacts on that significantly. With all due respect to the minister, I do not think she has adequately explained how this clause will work and where it kicks in. I apologise if I am being slow—it is first thing in the morning after a late night—but I do seek further clarification about why this is needed before the Greens can decide which way we are going to vote.