Page 1625 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
All in all, there are some significant positives in this respect. There will be some concerns. I am always concerned about the devil being in the detail and how departments will actually administer these schemes. I would urge them to do so sensibly, with sensitivity, fairly and with some innovation, because we do face a very critical stage. It is a shame that more steps were not taken earlier. I think it is shame that we did not continue with significant water restrictions when we had those good rains in 2005. I think our dams would have been much higher now. That being said, there are still a number of things we can do. There are a number of good points in this bill. I close by saying that I am particularly impressed by the water management areas that will enable all the current data to be utilised. Many of the old subcatchments rarely flowed, they were pretty dry most of the time, and the management areas seem to be pretty logical. The opposition will be supporting this bill and will be supporting the amendments to be moved by the government as a result of concern shown.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (7.40): First of all, I thank the government for arranging a briefing for us in a very short time when we and Mr Stefaniak expressed concern that the debate was going to happen at a time when we felt quite uninformed and unable to comment on the bill. I know that in my case the briefing reassured me and my staff on all the concerns that we had and I am now of the opinion that we are actually introducing here a good bill that is the result of some good work. I especially like the map that replaces the very pretty map.
The Greens think that water conservation is important, but equally important is wise use and a full understanding of the resource availability. We can tell we are approaching desperate times when it comes to water availability because it has finally become a mainstream issue. Unfortunately, many of the proposals we are hearing focus on increasing supply by any means available, including desalination and water recycling plants. The Leader of the Opposition has proposed cloud seeding but, unlike Tasmania where apparently it has been successful, currently we lack the necessary water-laden clouds.
That is just one of the quick-fix approaches suggested to me, but I am glad to say that I do not think that this bill is one of those quick fixes. I support the bill, as it will ensure that groundwater is not overallocated in times to come and extraction levels are based on percentages of sustainable yield. The Greens, along with many hydrologists and hydrogeologists, believe that water is a resource more finite than had been previously thought. Groundwater can provide a crucial water resource if the drought continues, but it needs to be effectively managed and have equal footing with surface water in the general debate. There seems to be a perception in the general community that groundwater can be extracted infinitely without repercussion. Obviously the government has now realised that this is a furphy, and hence the revision of the previous scheme and this bill.
Last year the government put out a public discussion paper on the allocation of water resources in the ACT, a paper in which I was very interested. Unfortunately, the government chose not to make the submissions on that paper publicly available. Thus, despite my interest in the topic, the first outcome of last year’s review of the existing legislation which I was able to see was this bill. It is disappointing that members on this side of the chamber have been forced to accept that, with majority government, so
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .