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

Is this not so much user pays as legislator pays? It is quite extraordinary that something that is relevant to the considera­tion of an amendment is something that we have to pay for in order to properly consider the context of the amendment given what the government has said. I just find that extraordinary. Madam Temporary Chair, I have taken your objective guidance in relation to this given what I foreshadowed, so I move:

That consideration of amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7118 be deferred to a later hour.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (5R) and (6R) on sheet 7122 revised:

Clause 56, page 81 (line 25), omit "significant", substitute "material".

Clause 56, page 81 (line 26), omit "significant", substitute "material".

These amendments relate to the regulations to be determined as to projects that should be on the negative list based on their impact on the availability of water, conservation of biodiversity, employment and the local community. However, under the current drafting the application of the significance test is at a very high threshold. These amend­ments remove this test from the bill and say that the minister must have regard to whether there is a material risk, so whether that kind of project will have a material adverse impact. I am grateful for the discus­sions that I have had with the government and my colleagues on both sides of the chamber in relation to these amendments.