Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

In principle, the opposition supports this. The minister has raised some valid points there and I think Senator Xenophon has responded that it was not his intention to make this specific to a particular sector but to provide some flexibility. The minister asks why the chamber is not linking this to the biennial review. I would highlight that some of the other amendments that we have just passed in terms of the capacity to alter the multiplier and so on are equally not linked to the biennial review. However, I would expect that, as a disallowable instrument, the parliament of the day would be holding the minister to account for adhering to those regular biennial reviews and ensuring that it was in fact consistent with them.

If we are contemplating some amendment to this, could I further suggest that we equally require a statement of reasons to be laid out. That would also then ensure that ministers were far more likely to do this only as a result of the biennial review. I think the minister knows, as we all know in this place, that amending legislation is a slow process for any government. Getting priority on the list for bills et cetera is a slow process, so providing this level of responsiveness through legislative instruments is useful. I accept that it needs to be done properly but it is not inconsistent with other amendments that have been passed around the application of the multiplier and other things. It would still be disallowable by either chamber but I think there is some benefit in ensuring that it treats the industry fairly, but perhaps also that it is transparent in terms of the necessity to give some reason too.