Page 1851 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
best possible terms of reference to the ICRC; we sought to add value to Mrs Dunne’s original motion in our amendments.
As I said, we do not agree with the historical aspects of the work that was proposed around the water security project and we have removed that reference. We also have concerns about the Murray-Darling reforms and asking the ICRC to make these assessments without the reforms in place. To that extent, I concur with the minister’s observations to some degree. Because the reforms have not been finalised, the ICRC will face the possibility of the ground moving under their feet midway during the inquiry this year.
That said, it is also important to acknowledge that this process is taking place. In a similar vein to my earlier comments, I think it is possible for the ICRC to be mindful of the process that is happening in the external environment and frame its analysis in that context by examining some of the likely scenarios and making findings while being mindful of what those outcomes might be.
That is why we have sought to acknowledge in our amendments that the Murray-Darling reforms are taking place, but I think the ICRC is capable of giving consideration to specific areas we are asking it to with those issues in the back of its mind.
Finally, the motion gives the ICRC seven months to undertake the inquiry. Normally the ICRC works on a model where they issue a discussion paper and seek submissions. On that basis, we think that it is probably better to offer a longer time frame to enable that usual process that the ICRC engages in. Something closer to a 12-month time frame would mean that we get a better result in the end because it will enable the ICRC to go through those steps that it usually does. I think that that is a useful process. It is transparent, it gives the public an opportunity to engage in the discussion and for experts to contribute to the ICRC process. On that basis, we propose a report date of the end of March.
That is the nature of the amendments. As I say, I think that this is a good opportunity to look at these quite important issues. I think that perhaps there are some different bases for wanting to explore these issues. Nonetheless, I think it is valuable to all members of the Assembly to have access to this kind of information and the expertise that the ICRC can bring to bear on these matters. I commend Mrs Dunne for bringing the motion forward and I commend our amendments to the Assembly.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (5.52): The opposition will be supporting the amendments proposed by the Greens. I think that some discussion has occurred between Mr Rattenbury’s office and Mrs Dunne’s office with regard to the amendments. The purpose of them has been outlined by Mr Rattenbury. In some cases, I think that they are nugatory. Some of the additional words, particularly with clause (1)(b), are probably unnecessary, but I think with the full intent of referring these matters to the ICRC being met with these amendments, they certainly do not essentially affect the substance of what Mrs Dunne is trying to achieve. So we will be supporting the amendments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video