Page 5183 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
returned to restore key environmental assets and key ecosystem functions. Whilst we do not dispute that particular element, we do dispute what the implications of that may be for the territory.
The level of environmental flows proposed to come from the ACT towards that figure in our view are predicated on some errors by the MDBA. I have outlined a number of those earlier, particularly the issues around both the amount of water that they allocate to forestry and agricultural uses in the territory, which is much higher than their own audited figure, and also the figure of urban stormwater run-off back into the basin. Neither of those figures seem to have had any regard to what has been the commonly accepted figure between the territory and the MDBA to date. For that reason I am reluctant to support that proposal.
Secondly, in relation to the amendment that calls on the government to engage in a constructive way with the current consultation process, that is exactly what the government is intending to do. I think it is a bit gratuitous to suggest otherwise. I note that Mrs Dunne is critical of me for not being hairy-chested enough on this issue. But I will conduct myself in the manner that I think is the best approach—
Mr Seselja: You have improved today though, Simon. You have improved since Vicki caused you to. You look better today than you have on other days.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MR CORBELL: All I would say in response to the interjections is that I have always said from day one that the government will be making representations about the concerns that we have and that we want to see those addressed.
Mr Seselja: Vicki has put a bit of steel in your spine though.
MR CORBELL: Mrs Dunne and the opposition can say that they have put some steel in my step or whatever. But the fact is that I have never wanted to see the territory as a recalcitrant in this debate. I do not want the territory to be seen as a recalcitrant in this debate. We are talking about the health of the Murray-Darling Basin, a river system which is fundamentally threatened and fundamentally compromised at this point in time. We do need to play a constructive role in that discussion.
But at the same time we need to assert and stand by what we believe is in the best interests of the territory. So that requires a constructive approach. That requires an informed approach and that requires an approach where you maintain and build relationships with the key decision makers so that you get the best possible outcome. I can sling arrows and stones at Tony Burke and the MDBA but I do not think it is going to assist the territory’s long-term interests by doing so.
Yes, I can be robust and, yes, I have always said that I will be robust in putting the territory’s position. But am I going to beat my chest and sling arrows and stones for the sake of it? No, I am not, because the federal water minister and the MDBA have a devilishly tricky job on their hands. I want the territory’s interests and the territory’s long-term expectations about water security to be protected. But I am also going to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video