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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2902 ..

of the Naas dam, it raises grave concerns to me that we should build a dam that facilitates more irrigation.

It shows a wonderfully sensitive understanding of the issues in relation to the scarcity of water supply that the Leader of the Opposition has just indicated that his justification for building the Naas dam without any consideration of the economic, social or environmental concerns is that he will be able to irrigate grapes. What a ripper! “Let’s build the Naas dam so that we can irrigate the region’s grapes”—in a debate about what a scarce and valuable resource water is!

As can be seen, the ACT government has a strong, ongoing commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin, and we have backed it with significant financial commitment. We are implementing strategies that will not only secure sustainable water management throughout the basin but will also set a benchmark for responsible water management for other jurisdictions to aspire to.

MR SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Ms Tucker—to discuss a matter of public importance.

MS TUCKER (4.36): It is indeed a matter of public importance, and I thank Mrs Dunne for bringing it on for discussion. The first point I want to make is that on World Environment Day in June 2002 I moved a motion for the Assembly to call on the government to develop an ACT water conservation and reuse strategy to ensure that the water needs of any increase in population could be met as far as possible within existing capacity.

I noted in that motion that the building of further water supply dams in the ACT should be avoided, that the water level in the ACT via the Murrumbidgee River should be of no lesser quality than the water flowing into the ACT and that adequate flows should be maintained in the ACT’s waterways to maintain their environmental values. Then I proceeded to call on the government to take particular steps, including developing a strategy. Of course, now we see the “Think water, act water” document, and things have moved on somewhat.

I want to remind members, and put on the record, what we are actually dealing with here. There is no disagreement among members of any party about the fact that we have a problem but, when you look at the response—I could talk in particular about the one that has just come out of the COAG meeting—there are obviously disagreements about the severity of the problem and how soon we need to deal with it.

I like the list of vital signs in Bill Phillip’s article in the Canberra Times of 28 August 2003. I will read them out:

1. Water diversions from the Basin have reached (and at times exceeded) 79 per cent of the system’s average annual discharge to the sea in South Australia.

2. Under natural conditions, the Basin was considered drought-affected five years out of 100; it is now 61 years out of 100.

3. River red gums and black box trees along the lower Murray are seriously affected by lack of floods and dying as you read this.

4. Waters are regulated by 3567 licensed dams and weirs, and also by around the same number of unlicensed structures.

5.

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