Senator NASH (9:50 AM) —Senator Siewert is indeed right. I think we had reached that point yesterday but, if the amendment had been put at that point, we would not have been able to take into account that information. As I indicated yesterday, I was also very interested in hearing the response from the minister on that particular issue. My understanding, as I said yesterday, is that particularly within the industry there is not a level of comfort—that what Senator Siewert is trying to ascertain is indeed the case. I certainly understand that there has been some interaction between the industry and the ACCC. That having been the case, and with them still coming to the coalition with concerns about the process, it really leads me to believe that perhaps it is not the case that that third-party effect is going to be undertaken by the ACCC. Hence the need, we thought, for moving our amendment.

Again, just to reiterate from yesterday, there is going to be, as Senator Siewert and others have pointed out, a lot of adjustment throughout the communities. We are looking at bulk water holders and the impact on them of changes in arrangements, of potentially taking water out for a public good. We believe that needs to be very closely looked at to ensure there are not consequences flowing on from the act of taking that water out for that public good. So we feel that this amendment is entirely appropriate in making sure at the very least that there is a safeguard for this process. I am sure the minister will very shortly give us some advice on the workings of the ACCC and I am sure she will very definitively point out how it is all in hand and all being undertaken through the ACCC process. But our view is very clearly that this amendment is appropriate. It will work, at the very least, as a safeguard to ensure that the effect on third parties around the bulk water arrangements is taken very much into consideration.