Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I too do not wish to prolong the debate, but this is a very important issue in terms of water security and food security. Can I perhaps turn it around this way. The government says that this is a piecemeal approach; I think that this is a guaranteed approach. It is not piecemeal; it is a comprehensive approach to deal with this issue. But I will truncate the debate so that we can get to the core of the issue. The government says that it will not support this amendment, which disappoints me, but what I am concerned about is this: how does the government say it will set criteria in assessing whether a project is an excluded offsets project? How will it set benchmarks? How will it appropriately assess whether a project will have an adverse impact on water or an adverse impact on food production? If, for instance, there is a risk that it could affect the supply of water in a particular area—for interception, for instance, which is a real issue in our river system, and esteemed water economists and scientists such as Professor Mike Young, from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, have talked about the issue of interception on many occasions—how will that be assessed? How will it be assessed whether a project reduces the production of a particular type of food grain in a particular area? How does the govern­ment take these matters into account? The government is saying, 'We agree with you that these are important matters, but this is not the way to do it.' How does the government say it will address these very important and fundamental issues?