Division
The majority voted in favour of [amendments (4) to (6)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.40.1), which means they will now become part of the bill. They were introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent). ### What do the amendments do? Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.40.1): > *Under the 2012 Basin Plan, basin states and the Commonwealth agreed to recover 2,750 gigalitres of water for the environment. To achieve this goal, the Basin Plan allows states to propose projects that will deliver an equivalent environmental outcome to buying back water licences without removing water from the consumptive pool. This is known as the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, and projects are referred to as sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects, or SDLAM projects. In total, the proposed SDLAM projects promise to deliver 605 gigalitres of equivalent environmental benefits, yet we're seeing delays. There are significant questions about whether the projects will deliver the promised benefits...* > > *Independent and transparent scrutiny of these projects is absolutely necessary to ensure the Australian public and the environment are not being short-changed on taxpayer money for projects to return water to the basin. This scrutiny is the role of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. The inspector-general must have appropriate powers to hold basin states accountable and to determine compliance with sustainable diversion limits and the promised outcomes of projects.* > > *My amendments further strengthen the inspector-general's powers to make sure the states and projects are delivering. They enable the inspector to undertake an independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's sustainable diversion limit, or SDL, calculations. These audits can be undertaken by the inspector-general or an independent
House of Representatives, 2023-10-18. affirmative: ayes 82, noes 49.
Question
The majority voted in favour of [amendments (4) to (6)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.40.1), which means they will now become part of the bill. They were introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent). ### What do the amendments do? Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.40.1): > *Under the 2012 Basin Plan, basin states and the Commonwealth agreed to recover 2,750 gigalitres of water for the environment. To achieve this goal, the Basin Plan allows states to propose projects that will deliver an equivalent environmental outcome to buying back water licences without removing water from the consumptive pool. This is known as the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, and projects are referred to as sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects, or SDLAM projects. In total, the proposed SDLAM projects promise to deliver 605 gigalitres of equivalent environmental benefits, yet we're seeing delays. There are significant questions about whether the projects will deliver the promised benefits...* > > *Independent and transparent scrutiny of these projects is absolutely necessary to ensure the Australian public and the environment are not being short-changed on taxpayer money for projects to return water to the basin. This scrutiny is the role of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. The inspector-general must have appropriate powers to hold basin states accountable and to determine compliance with sustainable diversion limits and the promised outcomes of projects.* > > *My amendments further strengthen the inspector-general's powers to make sure the states and projects are delivering. They enable the inspector to undertake an independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's sustainable diversion limit, or SDL, calculations. These audits can be undertaken by the inspector-general or an independent
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.