Page 3164 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 17 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
strapped government that needs to protect the dividends it receives from ACTEW. The Prime Minister said recently that water should not be a device for state and territory governments simply to raise money, and this is a sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with. The first priority for the income generated by the sale of water should be to invest it back into water infrastructure. It should not be used by government to cover its daily operating expenses.
The federal government, for its part, has led the way in showing its understanding of the importance of developing water infrastructure with its $1 billion national water initiative. This is a level of commitment, not financial but in spirit, that the ACT needs to match. The Chief Minister boasted recently that his government has spent $70 million on infrastructure over the last couple of years. However, it must be noted that the estimated dividend from ACTEW for the 2005-06 financial year alone was over $57 million. In addition, the government’s decision to dramatically increase the water abstraction charge will increase the revenue it received from the WAC by about $14 million in 2006-07.
Quite clearly, then, water is a significant source of income for this government, and it is a source of income that they have no problem increasing to cover other costs. In seeking to understand why the government has considered it necessary to increase charges for water, let us not forget that this is a government that, through its poor management of the economy, has driven the ACT budget to a crisis point that it is now attempting to reel back from. The budget deficit that this government, after more than four years in office, has handed the people of Canberra is impacting on all areas of life. Standards of education, health and municipal services, to name just a few, have all suffered as a result of this poor economic management.
My purpose in delving briefly into the overall budgetary position of the ACT is simply to attempt to make the point that the government cannot continue—and pardon the pun—to go to the well to cover its inability to manage the ACT economy. I have no issue with the government charging an appropriate amount for water. It is, after all, a valuable resource. There is a problem, however, if the government continually increases the charges, not to reinvest in water infrastructure but to pay for its financial errors and poor planning. Securing a sustainable water supply is clearly a matter of public importance. I do not claim to be an expert or to have all the answers, but in my short time as shadow minister in the opposition responsible for water policy I have already come to appreciate just how important and complex is this issue.
Because the issue is so important, because the impact of any miscalculation would be considerable, the first thing that needs to be established is that any plan is based on the most recent, credible and accurate data. Essential to any plan should be a willingness to invest in water infrastructure. I acknowledge that the government’s recent announcement of a $15 million extension to the Cotter-Googong bulk transfer system is a positive step and I hope that it represents a long-term willingness to focus the dividends and revenue that the government receives from water charges back into investment in infrastructure. Water, despite its value, should not be resourced to fund an ailing government. The people of the ACT should not have to pay increasing amounts for water if those amounts are not being used to fund further developments in water infrastructure.
Finally, crucial to the issue of securing a sustainable water supply is cooperation. The ACT government must be willing to cooperate at the national level with the federal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .