Professor Tasman Crowe:

As I see it, the Bill allows for it but does not demand it. The word "may", rather than the word "shall", is used in terms of the ad hocgroups. The ad hocgroups are not specified as being stakeholders so, to me, the Bill does need to become more transparent. I guess I read it with a more optimistic view the first time and I had two days to write my opening statement. When I was preparing for this meeting, I looked at the Bill with a more microscopic lens and I am not happy that the word "stakeholder" does not explicitly appear. When I read the Bill for the first time, I could see that there was an opportunity but, to me, it needs to be strengthened into a requirement. It needs to be more explicit that stakeholders are intended. The language suggests that those ad hocgroups could just be other experts. To me, the Bill needs to have a more explicit mention of stakeholders and what kind of stakeholder groups may have an input in the process.