Page 1155 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am quite disappointed with Mr Rattenbury. Mr Rattenbury can have ownership of this. If he thinks this is his idea then good luck to him. Why will he not vote for it today? And the answer is that the government has not done the work. It is in the agreement. We just heard that both ministers have started to seek advice and are starting to have discussions on a very straightforward and very simple reform.
Minister Corbell can complicate it or attempt to complicate it as much as he wants, but I think in some of what he said he actually makes the case. “Here is ESD coming up with policies. Here is TAMS coming up with implementation.” Why can that not be brought together to maximise the benefit for all that are involved?
Mr Rattenbury said that having a time frame was unwarranted. Mr Rattenbury came down this morning and on Dr Bourke’s motion said, “Gee, isn’t it interesting that the environment is not in the motion?” Maybe we know why now, because apparently none of them care. It was overlooked by the government. “Here are all the good things that we are doing,” except for the environment. And Mr Rattenbury, the old eco-warrior, has come down. But he has settled very comfortably now into the ministerial office. He cannot rock those boats. He cannot actually go for the outcome here.
This is a very simple motion. Yes, I appreciate that sometimes shifting functions out of one department into the other can have its difficulties, but here are three parties all saying that they would like this to happen, except the government is saying, “Not just yet, not now; we have to discuss it.” And it really does strike of ministers marking their fence posts: “This is my turf. You cannot have my turf. I am not going to give this up easily.” I think that is unfortunate.
I received an email from the conservation council this morning, as did the Chief Minister and Mr Corbell and Mr Rattenbury, and it might be worth reading it. I am assuming this is public; my apologies if it is not. It is from the executive director and it goes:
The Conservation Council welcomes the motion put forward by Shadow Minister for the Environment, Brendan Smyth regarding establishment of an integrated conservation agency.
We are particularly pleased the motion clearly indicates there is tri-partisan support for such an agency. We also share the sentiment expressed within the motion on the need for a timetable by which the change in administrative arrangements for this agency are put in place and this really needs to happen sooner rather than later.
As indicated in our briefing papers on this matter we have not expressed a viewpoint on where such an agency could or should be located, rather we have developed a set of principles on which such a decision should be based.
Given the tri-partisan support for the agency we hope the motion passes the Assembly. Or alternatively that any changes to the motion are agreeable to all parties and include recognition of the common support for the single conservation agency and the need for a timetable for implementation in the near future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video