Page 1852 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR CORBELL: (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.53): Again, Madam Assistant Speaker, the government does not agree with these amendments. It really is quite silly to be suggesting that there should be an inquiry that has to have regard to the impact of a plan, details of which are not known. Quite simply, it is silly to ask the ICRC to have regard, to the greatest extent possible, to the impact of a plan that has not been made public.
The fact is that none of it has been made public. We have no idea what the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is going to determine in its draft plan. All we do know is that what was in the guide to the draft plan is pretty much null and void. But apart from that, we do not know what the draft plan is going to say. We just do not know. Yet we have got this proposal here this evening that we are going to refer this matter to the ICRC and ask them to have regard to this issue.
How? How are the ICRC going to have regard to this issue? Are they going to try and divine what is in the mind of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—use some sort of telepathic capacity that is vested in the extraordinary authority of the ICRC? It is just a silly proposition. I ask members to reconsider. It really is silly. We are pursuing this inquiry in a manner which is not only premature but in some respects is just pointless, absolutely pointless. It is illogical.
I turn to the other issues that Mr Rattenbury refers to. He talks about how the Canberra urban waterways projects are being completed. Yes, they are being completed. They are not yet operational. We do not know yet what sort of volumes are going to be delivered on the ground. We have got projections on those, we have got assessments on those and we have got some advice from the ICRC in relation to the range of prices the ICRC believes could be applied for the sale of water from those projects.
But none of that is completed. Yet we are now leaping into an inquiry that is, again, asking the commission to have regard to these issues. The fact is that we have got no practical experience on the ground to guide us in relation to those projects in terms of take-up, in terms of use, in terms of operationalisation of these important infrastructure projects.
Again, I simply say to members that this is premature. Whilst this referral can be made, it is going to be a pretty pointless exercise given the circumstances that we have got in front of us in relation to some clear determinants—the Murray-Darling Basin plan and the Canberra urban waterways project. Again, I refer to the fact that we have a process for review of think water, act water, which has commenced and which would provide valuable input.
I say to members that if they believe it is desirable to have the ICRC look at these matters, have the ICRC look at these matters once we have got an operational Canberra urban waterways project, once we know what is in the draft guide to the Murray-Darling Basin plan and once we know what the outcomes are of the review of think water, act water, which is required activity under the policy. That would be a more sensible approach. The government will not be supporting these amendments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video