Page 1545 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
recreational users—as Dr Foskey says, even people’s own home gardening activity, whether for food production or simply the more aesthetic elements of home gardening—will be directly impacted, not to mention businesses, whether they are car washing, nursery or other activities that rely on significant water use.
The issue is a pressing and immediate one, and one that deserves proper inquiry. The terms of reference which Dr Foskey has proposed are supported by the government. Clearly, there is a range of options and issues that need to be explored. The government certainly supports scrutiny of its activity through think water, act water. We believe that that is an effective way of getting a broader debate on what has been done to date and what are the assumptions that underpin existing levels of water supply.
The term of reference on “international best practice principles and priorities for urban water management suitable for the ACT” is equally important. It is important that we look at the broader issues around how we manage our water supply. We have a large water supply which is treated to a very high level. Is that necessary? Are there other issues that need to be considered in terms of treatment of some parts of the water supply for potable use and other parts of the water supply for non-potable use? Does that help us manage our water supply better?
There are examples of this in Canberra at the moment. The sewer mining facilities at Southwell Park in Lyneham are an excellent example of the use of non-potable water being treated to a level that permits it to be used for non-potable uses. That means that less pressure is placed on the potable water supply. We have a situation where potable water is provided for potable uses and, in that circumstance at Southwell Park, non-potable water is being recycled and reused to augment the existing supply.
Those are important issues. Certainly, gray water use, the water recycling proposal, rain water capture and a range of other issues should properly be investigated. That will be done through the government’s existing processes. A prudent and cautious approach will continue to be adopted in that regard. If this motion is agreed to, the approach proposed by Dr Foskey will complement those existing strategies and approaches.
The government supports this proposal. It is one that provides for a complementary assessment and one that involves the public—again—in a process which allows them to put their views to another group of people to look at this issue, in addition to the views that they are able to put through the existing consultation processes being run by Actew and the government. The government is happy to support these terms of reference and happy to support the reporting date, but believes that the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment is the best avenue forward in terms of the existing knowledge base and the ability to implement these terms of reference in a timely manner.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (11.15): The opposition will be supporting Dr Foskey’s motion. I will be moving the amendments that are being circulated in my name.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .