Page 2819 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Wales. We take 63 to 65 gigalitres of water a year. We treat 33 gigalitres of water, or thereabouts, to a very good and high quality, which we then export.
I have no doubt that the initiatives now being pursued in relation to water trading—the Living Murray initiative, the national water initiative and the National Water Commission—are very good steps in relation to issues around water trading and the appropriate valuing of water. We need to accept the elimination of some of those uses, at almost no cost, which are essentially at the heart of the degradation of our systems.
I think that in the argument that has been put, there is a whole range of other considerations around the scarcity of the resource: the value that should be applied to it, demand management, the need for us to be responsible, and responsible citizens, within the basin, an acknowledgment of the impact on Actew and our catchment of the bushfires, the enormous expenditures in the infrastructure Actew have engaged in over the last three years in drought-proofing the territory and in ensuring that we have the capacity to treat the water to meet the daily needs of the people of the ACT.
There have been very interesting contributions to the debate. Perhaps it is something we can pursue another day. I will not labour it now except to say that I think Actew has done an excellent job. It has responded magnificently through the Cotter to Gugong transfer arrangement to drought-proof us into the short to medium term. It has allowed us to take a brief in relation to our longer-term water catchment and storage needs. That has not put it off indefinitely, but it is a short to medium term response that allows us an opportunity and a window to consider a whole range of other possibilities in relation to that.
The water treatment upgrades, the Cotter-Googong bulk transfer system, have come at significant cost to Actew and the territory—I think in excess of $60 million. I do not have the actual figure, but I believe in the order of $60 million has been expended by Actew in the last three years in capital upgrades.
I will conclude by saying that I accept the need for the ACT to understand and to ensure that the water abstraction charge is legal and that it is sound. The point I have made before and the point I will continue to make is that we would not pursue the water abstraction charge if we did not have the confidence that it was appropriate and legal.
Mrs Dunne: Show us the advice.
MR STANHOPE: No. The territory will not release its legal advice in relation to this or any other matter. But we are mindful of and sensitive to all the issues around the imposition of the water abstraction charge. We will ensure, in relation to all charges, that they are legally appropriate and supported by our constitutional power. I am confident that the water abstraction charge is one such charge that is legally appropriate and constitutionally valid. I might just say that I am aware of a number of attacks—and I will call them attacks—by Mr Mulcahy on the chief executive of Actew and on the chairman of the board that are, I think, unfortunate and unwarranted.
Mr Mulcahy: I just thought it was a flippant response.
MR STANHOPE: No, they are unfortunate and they are unwarranted. I think at one level it is inappropriate for a person protected by this place to be reflecting on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .