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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 42 ..

thought it: Bruce Stadium mark 2. Didn’t it just look like Bruce Stadium all over again—the project that was going to cost $14 million, with no business case, no real budget, no analysis of options? It is Bruce Stadium mark 2. They have learnt nothing.

MR HARGREAVES: Has Actew furnished the government with any reports that might identify a number of options?

MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Hargreaves. Actew, in concert with CSIRO and Ecowise, is looking at a number of options. They are doing a rigorous and strategic assessment of the options that we need to look at into the future. That is the point. We do have time. We do have options. We do have a capacity to reduce our consumption of water. We have done the work on that. We are introducing and will introduce a whole range of measures to reduce water consumption in the short term to allow us to put off this decision for as long as we can. Of course, there many financial implications associated with that.

Yes, Actew has identified a number of possibilities. The three preferred options that are being given consideration at this stage are to raise the wall of the existing Cotter Dam by 50 metres, to build a new dam in the Gudgenby-Naas Valley or to obtain existing water from the NSW Tantangara Dam. In relation to each of those options there are a whole range of social, economic, environmental, hydrological, climate change and rainfall pattern issues that will be taken into consideration. We should not forget, of course, that this work is being done in the context of an overarching strategic plan in relation to water use—something that is vitally important that allows us to commit to the reduction of our use of potable water and our reuse of grey water. These are things that will allow us in the short term to reduce our water consumption by probably up to 10 per cent if we are serious about this issue.

Of course, one knows that decision by the Liberals was taken in a rush only in the last few days. It was only in January this year, of course, that Mrs Dunne had a significant article published in the Canberra Times on planning for a new dam. Of course, in relation to its discussion of environmental flows it was completely wrong headed. It was totally ignorant around the issue of environmental flows. It is actually completely back the front in terms of the significance and importance of environmental flows.

There is something in that article that is very relevant to the decision that was taken just yesterday. Mrs Dunne refers to the other proposals for increasing ACT water supply. She includes building the Tennant Dam, enlarging the Cotter Dam and the Tantangara pipeline—things that we are doing detailed analysis of.

Mrs Dunne goes on to say that we need to remember that all of these options rely on extracting more water from the Murray-Darling Basin and all would involve reducing environmental flows out of the ACT as population increases. She goes on to say that what we should be considering in relation to these issues is that rather than extracting water from our most highly stressed system—a system whose water is all spoken for already for agriculture, electricity generation and drinking water from Adaminaby to Adelaide—Mrs Dunne’s preferred option of a dam in the Shoalhaven would trap flood water that was just running into the sea, in any event. So Mrs Dunne a month ago was arguing against a dam in our catchment.

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