Page 5125 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The ACT is the largest urban centre in the basin and it represents 17.5 per cent of the total basin population. Our water diversions from the basin represent about one-half of one per cent of the total diversion for consumptive purposes within the basin.
Over many years, there have been lengthy discussions about the level of the cap that the ACT should apply as part of maintaining a healthy basin. Before I became a member in this place but when I first worked in this place the discussions afoot at that time were that the ACT should have a cap of what is now an unimaginable figure of 150 gigalitres. Actually, I had to go back when I was researching for this and look at those figures. I had a conversation only recently with an eminent water person in the ACT who has a longer history in this and a much more eminent history on this matter than I do. He confirmed my recollection that, in fact, the initial discussions were in relation to 150 gigalitres.
At the time when we were negotiating around a cap of 150 gigalitres the ACT did not have a seat at the table of what was in those days the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. I remember the negotiations that went on year in, year out in a rather arid way for us to obtain something more than observer status at the then commission. I remember the negotiations between ministers here and hold-out authorities elsewhere, most notably Victoria. The Victorian government did not want the ACT at the table for the sorts of negotiations that in those days were talking about a cap of 150 gigalitres.
The ACT’s diversion limit was finally agreed in 2008 after it became a full voting member after many years of work. At the time I congratulated the Chief Minister on his achievement in this. The ACT became a full voting member of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. The cap was agreed at 40 gigalitres, which is a far cry from the heady days of 150 gigalitres. I had concerns about the nature of that cap and the issues around it but I had some comfort from the fact that the cap at the time allowed a growth factor as well.
It is true, of course, that over the past years our actual usage has been far less than that cap. Even when we were not in water restrictions it was unusual for us to be net users of anything like 40 gigalitres of water. Indeed, our usage has been at about the level that is contemplated under the proposed plan in the best of times. Of course, until recently our usage has been governed by stage 3 temporary water restrictions since 2006 and that has had a considerable impact. In fact, there was one year recently—2008, maybe 2009—when our net usage was as low as just under 16 gigalitres, which is an extraordinary achievement for the people of the ACT.
The bottom line here is that the diversion limits for the ACT, as proposed under the plan, will see a situation where the ACT would be committed almost permanently to stage 3 water restrictions. That would go on forever. If the Murray-Darling Basin plan evolves for the ACT as it is currently proposed, there will be no room for future growth in the ACT—none, forever.
People say to us all the time that we are spending half a billion dollars establishing Canberra’s future, establishing Canberra in a way that will be free of water restrictions into the future. The minister speaks about—he did so recently—how it is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video