Thank you, Chair. That's helpful clarification around the process undertaken around this.
I'm just trying to wrap all these details around in my brain. First and foremost, the motions were passed so that these studies are now in the queue per se to be looked at. I have some apprehensions of us setting a clear schedule of priorities from now up until 2023 and beyond, because I do think it will bind us and prevent us from being able to respond to issues as they are occurring. I think of the spot prawn issue, which was very timely and pertinent; we would have had the opportunity to talk about that.
I agree with us setting priorities as we've done with the motions currently. I don't agree with us setting priorities for all the motions that have been brought forward. I realize it's not realistic to go one to one, because it does depend on what has been brought forward, but I also think it's not realistic for us to set those priorities so far in advance and therefore take away the flexibility for us to respond to issues as required and be able to add studies that are perhaps more timely than others.