Page 2368 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
programs. I would have to say there is a very big gap between what this government promised in the lead-up to the election and what it chose to deliver.
Firstly, I want to talk about the rehabilitation of the Cotter catchment. I recently had the opportunity to be taken out on a site visit and to hear first hand from ACT Forests and Environment ACT about the work that they are doing. It was a valuable exercise and seeing it first hand really does bring home the scale and complexity of the task. Whether we plant with pines or natives or grassland species, the initial job of getting it ready for anything is, and continues to be, significant and resource intensive. ACT Forests and Environment ACT put some convincing arguments as to why having parts of the catchments restored as grassland for grazing is not viable.
I am pleased to see that ACT Forests and Environment ACT have taken up informed advice and show their commitment to the restoration of our catchment. The ACT Greens are still of the view that planting with pines will compromise the core objectives of maintaining water quality and quantity. It was particularly pleasing to see significant areas of natural regrowth of native vegetation and that was before, and just immediately before, the recent rains.
This again is an area that warrants further consideration. However, it is clear that there are many complexities in addressing this issue. Therefore, I am pleased that the estimates committee report notes the “need for a review of the progress and means of the rehabilitation to be reviewed by the end of 2005, including scope for public and scientific input”. I call on the government to take heed of this recommendation, particularly the need to continually engage with the scientific community on this matter and to report to the community at large on its thinking and actions.
Talking of rain, there are issues in regard to the implementation of the think water, act water strategy. As you will all be aware the ACT Greens are strong advocates for the desirability of water conservation measures as a way of addressing our water supply issues. Essentially, we argue that, by looking at water demand, we can significantly reduce our water consumption and, in so doing, shift our thinking about large-scale water supply options. Therefore we are pleased that the government has committed to significant targets to reduce consumption of potable water. However, we just do not feel that adequate resources are being allocated to meeting this task. In that context we were extremely disappointed to discover that this budget significantly cuts funding to the implementation of the think water, act water strategy. The government’s response to the estimates reports indicates no rethinking on this matter.
This is even more odd in view of the fact that the program has only been in place for a year and is yet to be evaluated for its effectiveness, although I understand that a review is in the pipeline. In this context, I hope that the government agrees to support the committee’s recommendation No 4—we already know that there is no commitment there—that greater consideration be given to additional resourcing to implement the water conservation measures of think water, act water once a review of the first year of the program is completed.
Finally, on the topic of water, I would like to comment on the need for separation between Actew’s role as water supplier and its role in providing advice to government. I still suggest that, while Actew has clear competence and expertise, there needs to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .