Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

So everybody agrees that there should be an inquiry into this proposal but they do not want to support this committee reference. That is fascinating. I would have thought that if people were really keen to get this inquiry underway they would want to see it done straightaway and would in fact be prepared to look at these terms of reference and maybe negotiate over them.

To set the record straight, I submitted my motion to the table office yesterday prior to notices of motion being given here. So, in fact, I was not trying to gazump Senator Boswell; I did not know he was moving a similar motion. As I said, I had already submitted my motion before presentation of notices yesterday. After I found out that Senator Boswell had presented his notice of motion yesterday, I tried to see if we could come up with a compromise where everybody’s needs were met.

If you look at the proposal that Senators Boswell, Joyce and Trood have submitted, you find for a start there is no date for when the committee should report. So we could have an ongoing inquiry just taking submissions endlessly. Where is the time frame? There is a very strong sense of urgency about the need for this inquiry. Where is their date? It seems to me the terms of reference for this inquiry were cobbled together fairly quickly. There is no date.

I would also like to point out an inherent contradiction in Senator Boswell’s terms of reference. His motion proposes to refer the matter to the committee for inquiry and report after ‘examination of all reasonable options’. Our very argument here is that this is an unreasonable option. The terms of reference say that we should be looking at ‘all reasonable options’ and then go on to look at the merits of all options, including the Traveston Crossing dam. Our very thesis is that this is an unreasonable option. That is why I think our terms of reference are much clearer. Senator Trood probably missed the fact that the terms of reference the Greens are proposing actually do require examination of other options. Our term of reference (iii) is ‘the balance of other options available to meet the region’s water resource needs’, which I think covers the question of other options very clearly.

I do think there are some flaws in the coalition senators’ terms of reference. I do think ours are better: they have a clear date for when the committee should report. They also make sure that we get on with the job right now and we do not waste any time. I am disappointed that the coalition and, for that matter, the Labor Party do not feel that they can support this motion. It was put up so that we can get on with the job of looking at this proposal and looking at alternative needs. I do agree with Senator Ian Macdonald that it is letting the Queensland government off the hook, but I think there is no alternative process for the community—the Queensland community in particular, of course—to actually get access to information and to be able to have their say. So, while I think that Senator Ian Macdonald does have a very significant point there, I do not think that that can take away from the need for the Senate to actually hold this inquiry, to at least have one method of shining some light on this proposal. As I said, I am disappointed that the committee of which I am deputy chair cannot get on with this job right now so we can start calling for public submissions and start getting access to this data. I am disappointed that we are going to have to wait weeks more before we can get on with this job. I put the motion to the Senate that the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee gets on with this inquiry and has an inquiry into the Traveston dam and the alternative options for water supply for south-east Queensland.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.