Page 2833 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I have answered the question, I believe. I can conclude only that Mr De Domenico in some way is trying to incite me to have an investigation of some sort. He so enormously enjoyed the other one that he wants to do it all again. I am afraid that on this occasion he is not going to get his way.
Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre
MR LAMONT: My question is directed to the Minister for Urban Services. Can the Minister inform the Assembly of the strategy for the future of the Lower Molonglo water treatment plant?
MR CONNOLLY: There was some concern because over the weekend we again had an incident where there was a bypass, which means that non-fully-treated effluent flowed from the treatment plant into the Molonglo. We again have a situation today where Mr Alby Schultz, a conservative member from up the creek, has been issuing inflammatory press releases, engaging in Canberra bashing and attacking Canberra for, he says, causing the phosphate build-up in the Burrinjuck Dam and causing algal blooms. The fact is that he is scientifically wrong because the level of phosphate that comes out, even with a bypass, is very low. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission has acknowledged that the level of phosphate that goes from the ACT, even though we are the largest population centre on the river, is negligible compared to the levels of phosphate caused by farmers putting super on their crops and it flowing into the river.
Rather than merely trading blows with Mr Schultz, which seems to have been the case for some years, this Government has gone about remedying the situation at the Lower Molonglo treatment plant. It has been occurring every year since the plant opened, in winter, in periods of very heavy rainfall. Because of a number of cross-connections in the old Canberra region, you get an enormous surge of water coming down the sewage treatment plant and that results in some non-tertiary-treated effluent going into the river.
Mr Humphries: Who started that work?
MR CONNOLLY: Who started that work? We started that work, Mr Humphries, because we commissioned a major survey earlier this year. Thank you, Mr Humphries, for allowing us to make that point. That reported in May of this year and I provided every member with a briefing on that and the documentary material. That shows a commitment of ACTEW to spend some $6m on a bypass dam, which will be built near the treatment plant.
In the event of future bypasses, and they will continue to occur, up to 100 megalitres of water will be collected in the dam and will then be treated as the plant comes back on stream with additional capacity. Over the few days of heavy rain early this week, a total of some 80 megalitres of non-tertiary-treated material flowed into the river. That will not happen again. This Labor Government has gone ahead and achieved results. Currently, there is an environmental impact assessment going on - as members would appreciate, that must occur with that type of major engineering work - but the expectation is that the engineering work could be completed by the end of next year, so that by winter 1994 these bypasses will be a thing of the past.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .