Page 2818 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.18 am): I spoke on Tuesday at some length about the concerns the Liberal opposition has in relation to the water abstraction charge. Those concerns are of long standing. Mr Mulcahy has dwelt on them today as well. There are just a couple of points I would like to make in relation to Actew, the main one being to reinforce and flesh out a little the issue in relation to scarcity value. The increase in the water abstraction charge is notionally for the scarcity value of water in the ACT.
We seem to forget that a huge proportion of the water that flows into the Murrumbidgee River system in the catchment area of the ACT flows out again at the other end—that 96 per cent of the water flows out the other side and that most of that water, or all of that water, goes downstream, where it is used and reused. Usually it is traded at a fraction of the cost the ACT taxpayers pay for their water.
ACT taxpayers, after the passage of this budget, will be paying in excess of 153c a kilolitre. The water we do not consume, which goes down the river and is traded, is traded often at 2c to 5c a kilolitre. There seems to be no recognition downstream of the scarcity value of water in the ACT. I think this government is kidding itself when it says we have to pay through the nose an extra 30c a kilolitre in recognition of the scarcity value as, when that water is traded downstream, it is paid for at a much lower rate than is paid for it in the ACT.
Of course, the water we use here is potable water. It is treated. The irrigators who are paying 2c to 5c a kilolitre for the water are not using it as treated water. It is not being treated. There are differences in the value of potable water. We use about six per cent of the water that falls in our catchment and flows through our territory. We make significant contributions to the downstream measures.
I think there are many people in this country who would agree with the argument that we should be paying more for water and valuing it, but I do not think it is urban dwellers who need to pay more. There should be much more economic value apportioned for the agricultural purposes of water. Until that happens, I think the hapless residents of the ACT should be given a break. I would be happy—and I know many constituents who would be happy—to pay more for water when irrigators are paying something like what we pay in the ACT for our water.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (4.21 am): I thank members for their contributions to this particular line. I must say there is much of what Mrs Dunne has just said that I do not necessarily disagree with, at one level.
Mrs Dunne: That is the second time today.
MR STANHOPE: Yes, it is. What you say is quite true. The ACT is a net exporter of the water that falls within the ACT catchments. I think New South Wales benefits very significantly from our attitude to water, both in terms of the export of water that falls within the territory catchments and, indeed, as a result of the quality of the recycled water and the extent to which we export through the lower Molonglo into New South
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .