BILLS DIGEST NO. 118, 2017–18
PDF version [259KB]
Bill McCormick and Sophie Power
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section
18
June 2018
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Key issues and provisions
Date introduced: 10
May 2018
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Agriculture
and Water resources
Commencement: The
day after Royal Assent or 1 July 2018, whichever is earlier.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at June 2018.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Water Amendment Bill 2018 (the Bill) is
to amend the Water
Act 2007 to enable the Commonwealth Water Minister to direct the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to prepare an amendment to the Basin Plan 2012
(the Basin Plan) that is the same in effect as a Basin Plan amendment that
has previously been disallowed, or taken to have been disallowed, by either
House of Parliament.[1]
Background
The Murray and Darling Rivers are the world’s 15th longest river system, but they are long and slow
flowing rivers with high evaporation rates and carry one of the world’s
smallest volumes of water for their size.[2]
Water quality throughout the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) declined through the
20th century due to increased salinisation (caused by salt stored in soils
and/or groundwater being mobilised by extra water associated with human
activities such as irrigation or land clearing) and more nutrients in the water
from increased use of fertilisers and soil erosion. This
decline in river health was further exacerbated when water diversions across
the MDB increased substantially during the 1980s and early 1990s, raising
concerns that these diversions were exceeding sustainable levels.
The Water Act established the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) with responsibility for developing and
implementing a Basin Plan, one of the key elements of which was to include
sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) on the quantities of surface water and
ground water that can be taken from the Basin's water resources.
The Basin Plan set a long-term average
surface water SDL of 10,873 GL per year (GL/y) for urban, industrial and
agricultural use in the MDB to be achieved by 2019. This is a reduction of
2,750 GL/y from the June 2009 Baseline Diversion Limit (BDL) for the MDB.[3]
It also set SDLs for the extraction of the basin’s groundwater at 3,334 GL/y.[4]
The MDBA conducted a four year review of the
Northern Basin[5]
which involved research into socio‑economic, hydrology and
environmental aspects of the northern Basin and consultation with northern
Basin communities.[6]
Following this review, the MDBA developed amendments to the Basin
Plan for the Northern Basin, groundwater as well as minor practical changes.[7] Requirements for amending
the Basin Plan are set out in Subdivision F of Part 2 of the Water Act and
include a significant period of public consultation. The key proposed change was
a reduction in the total water to be recovered in the Northern Basin from
390 GL to 320 GL.[8]
In addition, the amendments proposed to increase the
overall groundwater SDL in the MDB from 3,334 GL/y to 3,494 GL/y.[9]
These amendments were included in the Basin Plan Amendment
Instrument 2017 (No. 1) which was tabled in the Senate on 14 November 2017.
On 14 February 2018, the Senate voted to disallow the Basin Plan Amendment
Instrument 2017 (No. 1), a legislative instrument made under section
48 of the Water Act that had included the proposed northern Basin
amendments, as well as the groundwater and minor practical changes.[10]
ALP Senator Penny Wong said there were ‘extraordinarily serious allegations of
water theft and corruption in the northern basin’ and ‘[u]ntil we can guarantee
that water purchased by taxpayers gets to the parts of the river where it is
needed, it is difficult for us to support the northern basin proposal.’[11]
She quoted Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water, Tony Burke, saying:
... you can't have a situation where the Australian taxpayer is
paying for environmental water and environmental watering events being
organised and that exact water is being pumped straight back into dams.[12]
Senator Wong said that ‘we cannot allow a reduction in the
volume while it is still possible for environmental water to be pumped back
into irrigation.’[13]
The ALP wanted the MDBA’s review of compliance and enforcement done
comprehensively and the problems dealt with. She said that Labor had been in
discussions with the new Minister for Agriculture and Water, David Littleproud,
to try to resolve these issues.[14]
On 7 May 2018, the ALP came to an Agreement
with the Government that it would not support the disallowance motion relating
to another amendment to the Basin Plan (the Basin Plan Amendment
(SDL Adjustments) Instrument 2017) and would ‘support legislative
amendments to the Water Act to allow the Northern Basin instruments to
be re-enacted and would then not support disallowance of those instruments.’[15] Tony
Burke, Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water said:
It is critical now that work on acquiring
the 450GL commences, that metering in the north proceeds, that improved
compliance is a reality and that the new levels of transparency are observed in
the letter and in the spirit of the agreement...
I am particularly pleased that we have also
managed to include something that I had not been able to put into the Plan back
in 2012. For the first time there will now be a fund for first nations in the
Northern and Southern Basin to be able to acquire water entitlements[.] It by
no means concludes what needs to be done with respect for cultural water but it
is a step in the right direction and I am please[d] the Government has been
willing to make it.[16]
The six page agreement includes the establishment of a
Northern Basin Commissioner, funded for three years, to oversee the
implementation of the Northern Basin Review.[17]
It also states that the Government will implement the key outcomes of the MDBA’s
review of compliance and enforcement, and will develop and deliver a Basin
Compliance Compact.[18]
Committee
consideration
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee
The Bill was referred to the Senate Rural
and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and the report
was released on 12 June 2018.
The Committee recommended that the Senate pass the Bill.[19]
In response to concerns raised about lack of consultation for the proposed
amendments to the Basin Plan, the Committee said that since the new amendment
instrument must be the same in substance as the disallowed instrument, it will
have already been subject to the consultation requirements of the Water Act.[20]
According to the Committee, the proposed power allowing the minister to direct
the MDBA to prepare such an amendment is limited in scope and not open to abuse
because of the 12-month time frame and other restrictions imposed.[21]
In a dissenting report, the Australian Greens opposed the
passage of the Bill.[22]
This was because: the Bill does not meet the Water Act’s requirement to
base decisions on the best available science, permits the Minister to direct
the MDBA to prepare Basin Plan amendments and so violates the independence of
the MDBA, and allows for the disallowed instrument to be reconsidered without
community consultation.[23]
They also stated that ‘the Senate should not consider the Bill any further
until the Federal Government makes available its legal advice that what is being
proposed with this Bill is compatible with the Water Act 2007’.[24]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
At the present time, the Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills has not considered this Bill.
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
As mentioned earlier, the ALP has stated its support for ‘legislative
amendments to the Water Act to allow the Northern Basin instruments to
be re-enacted.’[25]
As mentioned above, the Australian Greens oppose the Bill.
After the disallowance motion for the Basin Plan Amendment (SDL Adjustments)
Instrument 2017 was defeated in the Senate, Greens Murray-Darling Basin Spokesperson,
Senator Hanson-Young said:
The Labor Party said they couldn't support handing 70 billion
litres over to big corporate irrigators when they supported the Greens
disallowance in February, because of the rorting, water theft and corruption
rife in the northern basin, yet the only thing that has changed in the Northern
Basin is that Labor is now on the side of big cotton.[26]
None of the other non-government parties or independents
in the Senate have made their policy position known. However while the Pauline
Hanson One Nation Party and the Liberal Democrat Senators voted against the
disallowance motions for both Basin Plan amendments, the Centre Alliance
Senators voted for both motions.[27]
Position of
major interest groups
The Inland Rivers Network object to the Bill on the basis that,
among other matters, it circumvents consultation provisions in the Water Act
and permits the retrospective validation of the reallocation of water recovery
from one river valley to another.[28]
The Australia Institute said that the Bill should not be
passed because:
- there has been no public
consultation on fundamental changes to the Basin Plan;
- future changes to the Sustainable
Diversion Limits (SDLs) can be inconsistent with the Water Act;
- future changes to the
SDLs can be made outside the parliamentary process; and
- the actual wording of
the Amendment to the Basin Plan are ambiguous or not provided.[29]
Other the other hand, farming groups supported the Bill.
For example, the National Irrigators Council support the Bill and said:
The overall assessment carried out by MDBA and verified
independently, indicated that overall the proposed changes would actually
improve the environmental outcomes of the Plan but without causing future socio
economic harm to communities which, the reviews concluded, had already seen a
significant negative impact.
Irrigators did not get all they wanted from the Northern Basin
Review. In particular, communities in the North felt that they had already been
required to give up enough water and there should be no further recovery.
Despite this, we recognised that an extensive process had been undertaken and
that the recommendation was an overall improvement over the original Basin
Plan.[30]
Cotton Australia also support this Bill:
This Bill provides a mechanism to allow the previously
disallowed regulation that would provide a 70Gl reduction in the northern basin
environmental allocation to be implemented by ministerial order. The Bill
provides certainty to the communities that the Plan can continue to be
implemented in a measured manner consistent with the intent of the Act.[31]
Financial
implications
There is no financial impact arising from this Bill.[32]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[33]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has not
yet considered this Bill.
Key issues
and provisions
Ministerial directions to amend the Basin Plan
The key substantive provision in the Bill is item 2,
which inserts a proposed section 49AA into the Water Act, to
enable the minister to direct the MDBA to prepare an amendment to the Basin
Plan 2012 that is the same in effect as an amendment that has previously been
disallowed by either House of the Parliament.
In short, the Bill is a direct response to the
disallowance of the Basin
Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1) (as discussed earlier in this
Digest).[34]
The Bill will allow that instrument to be remade[35]
without going through the consultation process again, which the Department of
Agriculture and Water Resources has estimated would take ‘at least eight
months’.[36]
Currently, sections 45 to 49 of the Water Act provide
a statutory process for making amendments to the Basin Plan whereby the MDBA
prepares an amendment for adoption by the Minister. The proposed Basin Plan amendment
is prepared in consultation with Basin States[37]
and is also released for public comment.[38]
Once public consultation has occurred, the MDBA must consult with the
Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in relation to the proposed amendment.[39]
The process for the Minister to adopt the amendment (or not) is set out in
section 48 of the Water Act. Amendments to the Basin Plan are a
legislative instrument and can be disallowed by either House of Parliament.[40]
Section 49 of the Water Act also provides for
regulations to be made to allow the MDBA to make specified kinds of minor, or
non-substantive, amendments to the Basin Plan and sets out the process for the
making of those amendments.[41]
Under proposed subsection 49AA(4), the usual
consultation requirements in sections 46 to 48 of the Water Act outlined
above will not apply to an amendment prepared under a direction pursuant to section
49AA. However:
- the amendment must be the ‘same in effect’ as an earlier,
disallowed amendment which was prepared in accordance with the consultation
requirements[42]
and
- the proposed directions power is limited to amendments which have
been disallowed in the previous 12 months.[43]
Proposed subsection 49AA(6) provides guidance as to
the types of changes in an amendment that will be considered to the ‘same in
effect’, which will include:
- changes required because another amendment of the Basin Plan has
commenced after the commencement of the earlier amendment
- changes required because a requirement under the Basin Plan has
already occurred, or been met, after the commencement of the earlier amendment
and
- changes that cause the amendment to commence later than the
earlier amendment.
The note to proposed subsection 49AA(6) further
clarifies that minor or non-substantive amendments do not prevent the amendment
from being the same in effect as the earlier disallowed amendment, including
minor or non-substantive amendments as prescribed in the Water Regulations 2008.[44]
However, as noted earlier in this Digest, the fact that
the usual consultation requirements in the Water Act will not apply to
an amendment prepared under a direction under section 49AA was a particular
source of concern during the Senate committee inquiry into the Bill:
It was put to the committee that the disallowed NBR
instrument, as presented to the parliament in late 2017, was substantially
different to the version that was subject to public consultation in 2016. This
made some submitters particularly concerned about a potential lack of public
consultation on forthcoming amendments, resulting from the passage of the bill.[45]
Indeed, several stakeholders, such as the Environmental
Defenders Office of New South Wales (EDO NSW) suggested that the Bill is
designed to ‘circumvent’ the community consultation provisions in the Water
Act.[46]
Nature of
the Minister’s direction
Under proposed subsection 49AA(2), the MDBA must
comply with the Minister’s direction by preparing the amendment, and giving it
to the Minister for adoption, as soon as practicable.
Under proposed subsection 49AA(3), as soon as
practicable after receiving the amendment, the Minister must either adopt the
amendment or give the MDBA notice, in writing, that the Minister has decided
not to adopt the amendment.
Proposed subsection 49AA(5) states that a
Ministerial direction made under proposed subsection 49AA(1) is a legislative
instrument. However, it is not subject to section 42 of the Legislation Act 2003,
relating to disallowance, nor is it subject to the sunsetting provisions of the
Legislation Act.[47]
This provision is similar in terms to existing subsections
44(4) and 48(4) of the Water Act, which provide that other, similar
directions by the Minister to the MDBA (relating to the modification of the draft
Basin Plan and Basin Plan amendments respectively) are also not legislative
instruments, nor are they disallowable. As such, subsection 49AA(5) is likely
to have been included in the Bill for clarification as in any case, the
Minister’s direction is unlikely to be disallowable, even in the absence of
subsection 49AA(5). In particular, regulation 9 of the Legislation
(Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 provides that certain
classes of legislative instruments are not subject to disallowance, including
‘an instrument that is a direction by a Minister to any person or body’.[48]
However, concerns were expressed in some submissions to
the Senate inquiry into the Bill that the Ministerial direction under section
49AA will not be subject to parliamentary oversight and may undermine the
independence of the MDBA.[49]
Notably, although similar Ministerial directions under
sections 44 and 48 of the Water Act (mentioned above) are not
disallowable legislative instruments, they do have to be tabled in parliament
along with the reasons for giving that direction.[50]
The original Explanatory Memorandum for the Water Bill 2007 states in relation
to the existing section 44:
A direction by the Minister is not a legislative instrument ...
However ... the Minister must table any directions to the [Murray-Darling Basin] Authority.
This ensures that the Minister is accountable for any directions given to the
Authority.[51]
However, under the Bill, in this case, the Minister’s
direction made under proposed section 49AA is not required to be tabled
in parliament. An issue for consideration is whether the Bill should be amended
to require direction made under section 49AA to be tabled in parliament, along
the lines of subsections 44(7) and 48(7).
Disallowance
of Basin Plan amendments made under section 49AA
Subsection 33(2) of the Water Act provides that
amendments to the Basin Plan are a legislative instrument. Item 1 of the
Bill amends subsection 33(2) to provide that amendments prepared under proposed
49AA are also legislative instruments. As such, any Basin Plan amendment (as
opposed to the Ministerial direction) prepared under proposed section 49AA
would be subject to disallowance under section 42 of the Legislation Act.[52]
Non-delegation
Section 251 of the Water Act enables the Minister
to delegate his or her powers or functions to the Departmental Secretary, SES
employees or acting SES employees of the Department, except for the powers
listed in subsection 251(2).
Items 4 and 5 of the Bill amend subsection 251(2)
to provide that the Minister’s power to adopt an amendment under proposed
section 49AA, and the new Ministerial direction power in proposed
section 49AA, cannot be delegated.
Transitional
provisions
Item 7 of the Bill adds a new Schedule 10 to
the end of the Water Act which will contain transitional provisions
relating to the amendments in this Bill.
Proposed section 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 10 states
that the amendments made by the Bill apply regardless of whether an earlier
amendment to the Basin Plan was disallowed before, at or after the commencement
of the Schedule.
Proposed section 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 10 refers
directly to the disallowed Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1). Proposed
subsection 2(2) lists certain changes that will be considered to be the
‘same in effect’ as the disallowed Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No.
1), including:
- an additional requirement to the definition of re-allocation
adjustment request in subsection 6.05(6) of the proposed amendment to the
Basin Plan to enable a request to be made in anticipation of this provision
being amended in the Basin Plan[53]
-
an additional requirement in subsection 6.05(13) of the Basin
Plan to require the MDBA to publish variations to the SDL resource unit shared
reduction amounts on its website, even when there has not been an initial
re-allocation adjustment requirement[54]
and
-
a change to section 7.14A of the Basin Plan to reflect that the
2017 sustainable diversion limit adjustments have already occurred.[55]
Some interest groups have expressed concern with these
transitional provisions. For example, the EDO NSW have made the point that
these provisions of the Bill would ‘defeat’ provisions in the Legislation
Act that invalidate legislative instruments that apply retrospectively and
disadvantage or impose additional liabilities on people.[56]
The EDO NSW further noted that the proposed clauses in the Basin Plan amendment
that are listed in proposed subsection 2(2) are ‘significant’.[57]
Moreover, the EDO NSW pointed out that the listed clauses were not part of the
community consultation process for Basin Plan amendments as they were not
contained in the Basin Plan amendment published for public consultation in
2017, but rather were first included in the Basin Plan amendment when it was
tabled in parliament in 2017.[58]
As noted earlier in this Digest, others stakeholders, including the Inland
Rivers Network and EDO NSW, were particularly concerned that the transitional
provisions would retrospectively validate requests that have already been made
by a Basin State to reallocate water recovery from one valley to another, in
anticipation of the Basin Plan being amended.[59]
[1]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Water Amendment Bill 2018, p. 2.
[2]. K Molloy, ‘The Murray-Darling Basin Plan: cooperation in transboundary
water management’, in S Nicklin and B Cornwell, Free
flow: reaching water security through cooperation, UNESCO
publishing, Paris, 2013, pp. 77–80.
[3]. MDBA, ‘What’s in the Basin
Plan’, MDBA website. Note that the BDL includes 823 GL/y of water that had
already been recovered for the environment, through the Living Murray
initiative, Water for Rivers Program and state water sharing plans and which is
not part of the 2,750 GL reduction: MDBA, Regulation
impact statement: Basin Plan.
[4]. MDBA,
‘Proposed Basin Plan
amendments for groundwater’, MDBA website.
[5]. The
Northern Basin zone comprises 12 catchment areas across south Queensland and
northern New South Wales: see further MDBA, Basin
Plan amendments—snapshot of northern Basin changes, February 2017, p. 3;
see also Basin Plan, subsection 6.05(2).
[6]. MDBA,
‘Proposed
Basin Plan amendments for the Northern Basin’, MDBA website.
[7]. MDBA,
‘Basin
Plan amendments’, MDBA website.
[8]. MDBA,
‘Proposed
Basin Plan amendments for the Northern Basin’, op. cit.; MDBA,
Basin
Plan amendments snapshot, op. cit.
[9]. MDBA,
‘Proposed Basin Plan
amendments for groundwater’, op. cit.
[10]. Australia,
Senate, Journals,
86, 2017–18, 14 February 2018, p. 2728.
[11]. P
Wong, ‘Disallowance:
Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1)’, Senate, Debates, 14
February 2018, pp. 1151–2.
[12]. Ibid.,
p. 1152.
[13]. Ibid.
[14]. Ibid.
[15]. T
Burke (Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water), Murray-Darling
Basin Plan survives, media release, 9 May 2018, p. 1; see also D
Littleproud (Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources), Statement
on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, media
release, 7 May 2018, Attachment.
[16]. Ibid.
[17]. Littleproud,
Statement
on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, op. cit.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Senate
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018, The Senate,
Canberra, 2018, p. 25.
[20]. Ibid.
[21]. Ibid.
[22]. Australian
Greens, Dissenting
report, Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, Inquiry into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018,
The Senate, Canberra, 2018.
[23]. Ibid.,
p. 27.
[24]. Ibid.,
p. 28.
[25]. Burke,
Murray-Darling
Basin Plan survives, op. cit.
[26]. S
Hanson-Young (Greens Murray Darling Basin spokesperson), The Greens are the last line of defence for a healthy river system, media release, 10 May 2018.
[27]. See,
in particular, Australia, Senate, Journals,
86, 2017–18, 14 February 2018, p. 2728.
[28]. Inland
Rivers Network, Submission
to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018, 25 May 2018, pp 1–2.
[29]. The
Australia Institute, Submission
to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018, May 2018, p. 3.
[30]. National
Irrigators Council, Submission
to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018, 25 May 2018, p. 2.
[31]. Cotton
Australia, Submission
to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018, 25 May 2018, p. 2.
[32]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Water Amendment Bill 2018, p. 1.
[33]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 2 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[34]. D
Littleproud, ‘Second
reading speech: Water Amendment Bill 2018’, Debates, House of
Representatives, 10 May 2018, p. 3645.
[35]. Section
48 of the Legislation
Act 2003 does allow a legislative instrument that has been disallowed
to be re-tabled in Parliament. However, a legislative instrument that is the
‘same in substance’ as a disallowed instrument cannot be made within six months
after being disallowed without the approval of the relevant House of Parliament.
This means that the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1),
disallowed by parliament on 14 February 2018, could in any case be re-made
after 14 August 2018. However, it would need to go through the
consultation processes set out in the Water Act.
[36]. Department
of Agriculture and Water Resources, Submission
to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Inquiry
into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018, 18 May 2018, p. 2.
[37]. Water Act,
sections 46 and 47.
[38]. Ibid.,
section 47.
[39]. Ibid.,
section 47A.
[40]. Water
Act, subsection 33(2); Legislation Act
2003, section 42.
[41]. This
process is set out in regulation 2.03 of the Water Regulations 2008.
[42]. Water
Amendment Bill 2018, proposed paragraph 49AA(1)(a); see also Explanatory
Memorandum, Water Amendment Bill 2018, pp. 5–6.
[43]. Water
Amendment Bill 2018, proposed paragraph 49AA(1)(b).
[44]. See
further paragraph 49(1)(a) of the Water Act and regulation 2.03 of the Water Regulations 2008.
[45]. Senate
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018, op. cit., p. 19.
[46]. Ibid,
pp. 18–19.
[47]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Water Amendment Bill 2018, p. 6. For further information on
sunsetting, see Attorney-General’s Department, ‘Legislation
Act 2003’, Attorney-General’s Department website.
[48]. See
also Legislation Act, section 44.
[49]. Senate
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018, op. cit., pp. 24–5.
[50]. Water
Act, subsections 44(7) and 48(7).
[51]. Revised
Explanatory Memorandum, Water Amendment Bill 2007, p. 14.
[52]. See
also Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Submission
to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee,
op. cit., p. 2.
[53]. Water
Amendment Bill 2018, item 7, proposed paragraph 2(2)(a).
[54]. Ibid.,
proposed paragraph 2(2)(b).
[55]. Ibid.,
proposed paragraph 2(2)(c).
[56]. See
especially Legislation Act, subsection 12(2). However, note that, under
subsection 12(3) of the Legislation Act, this prohibition on
retrospective application can be overcome by an express provision in an Act.
[57]. EDO
NSW, Water
Amendment Bill 2018 Briefing note and key issues summary, op. cit., p.
4.
[58]. Ibid.;
The Australia Institute, op. cit., p. 8.
[59]. Inland
Rivers Network, Submission
to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, op. cit.,
p. 1; EDO NSW, Water Amendment Bill Briefing note and key issues summary,
25 May 2018.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth
Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party,
this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and
communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as
long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence
terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this
publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of
publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists
in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may
be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and
any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament.
They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available
in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do
not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the
relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments
or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official
status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be
directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are
available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members
and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or
the Library’s Central Enquiry Point for referral.