Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (5 June) . . Page.. 1961 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

A couple of years ago we were offered a briefing in this place by scientists who had been employed to look at the question of salinity, and I went to that briefing with Mr Brendan Smyth. From memory, no other member went. I can tell members that it was the most frightening briefing I have had in my seven years here-it was absolutely shocking. I cannot stress enough how serious this situation is and I cannot say strongly enough how absolutely outrageously irresponsible the federal government has been in its response. Once again, state and territory governments are prepared to play politics with this.

The first part of my motion sets out three key principles and objectives which I think need to be adopted for the ACT's management of water to be sustainable into the future. We have to learn to live within our water constraints and not assume that we can just build more dams to meet growing demand. Water supply dams cause huge environmental impacts and are very expensive. There is also the need to ensure an adequate level of flow within our waterways so that they can maintain the resemblance of a natural ecosystem-we cannot just suck all the water out of a river without destroying the river itself.

As a principle, we should also try to ensure that the water leaving the ACT is at least the same quality and hopefully better than the quality of the water coming into the ACT. Canberra is the biggest inland city in Australia, and our sewerage and stormwater eventually ends up in the Murrumbidgee River and ultimately the Murray. We have to remember that our sewerage and the run-off from our streets and buildings becomes the drinking water of the towns downstream.

The ACT already has a network of water monitoring stations administered by Environment ACT that can be used to see whether this principle is being achieved. The water quality report for 2000-01 found that the median values for a number of water quality indicators, such as total phosphorous, total nitrogen, chlorophyll, faecal coliforms and conductivity, increase from where the Murrumbidgee enters the ACT to where it leaves, so there is scope to improve our efforts in this area.

The second part of my motion puts forward two specific actions that I think the government should take to enhance our management of water. Firstly, I want the development of an ACT water conservation and reuse strategy to ensure that the water needs of any increase in population can be met, as far as possible, within existing capacities.

My motion is not meant to be critical of the work that is already going on within the ACT to manage water. I acknowledge that Environment ACT is already doing a lot to monitor water quality and to regulate water use. Actew, before it became ActewAGL, did much work on future water supply strategies and implemented some water recycling schemes. My point here today is to call on the government to bring together this work into an overarching strategy that will inspire and lead the community.

What I am thinking of is a water equivalent of the No Waste by 2010 target or the ACT greenhouse target. The previous liberal government, to its credit, was prepared to set some visionary targets and objectives which provided a focus for community and government action and a benchmark by which to measure our efforts. This sense of an overall vision seems to be lacking in our management of water.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .