Page 509 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let us not forget that other water supplies can also be affected - in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia - by what we do here. Whenever we flush our toilets we can be sure that eventually that water, hopefully somewhat cleaned, will flow down through those States. Having lived at the end of the Morgan-Whyalla pipeline, I accept that the water that leaves our cisterns will eventually go a very, very long way.
The ACT seems well equipped at the moment to cope with waste water. The Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre has a capacity for 400,000 people and, although that causes us some financial concerns about the way that is being replaced, we have an excellent system and the capacity to ensure that our waste water is controlled well. It is done similarly with the Fyshwick treatment works for industrial waste which of course then goes to the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre for further quality control.
The capacity of water treatment works is finite, especially if we think we can go on deliberately or inadvertently pouring chemicals and other wastes into our own and the area's water supplies. It seems to me that this amendment Bill is about being able to react to that and to react quickly. For that reason, I recommend that this Bill be carried.
MRS GRASSBY (Minister for Housing and Urban Services) (3.46), in reply: I am pleased to have the support of the house on this Water Pollution (Amendment) Bill because it is very important. I see by Mr Moore's statement that his visit to ACT Electricity and Water was not wasted. I was pleased to be able to arrange that. I was sorry that the Liberal Party members were away at a conference. We will have to do it some time for them. This Bill will make the control of water pollution more efficient, and the analysis techniques will keep up with scientific advancements. The Water Pollution Act has already been very successful. Great improvements are apparent in the ACT in the quality of the waterways.
The two notable examples are that the Murrumbidgee River is protected from the land development runoff and erosion, which has been a very serious thing, and Lake Burley Griffin is no longer terribly foul smelling on the very hot days of summer, as it used to be, since the discharge from the Canberra abattoirs and the Queanbeyan sewage treatment plant has been controlled. Despite the advancements, there is more to be done, and the Bill will assist in this task.
I appreciate Mr Humphries' words. I appreciate what he had to say, but he spent most of the time talking about New South Wales. The Act itself is very tough; we do not need to make it any tougher. I am amazed that Mr Humphries wants to make this tougher, when I cannot get him to agree on making another Bill before the house tougher. But there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .