Page 5177 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
compounded decade after decade ever since by over-allocation, a culture of state-versus-state, and a simplistic battle of downstream versus upstream settlement and environment versus irrigation.
Yes, the good new is that we now have $9 billion on the table and an opportunity to return the Murray-Darling to a healthy state, and we must not squander the opportunity. Instead, we must make the most of it. In light of Mrs Dunne’s earlier comments, this is the context in which the Greens made the observation that we cannot allow this plan to fail, and I stand by those comments. We cannot let this river system simply slide into a state of dysfunction because we cannot agree on a way to make it better.
To make the most of this opportunity we cannot return to the old habits of an inward-looking approach. We must literally think of the basin as a whole; we must think of the downstream users; we must think of all the stakeholders when approaching negotiations on the guide.
That leads me to our response on the Canberra component of the plan. I did hear the comments the attorney made, and I think there is quite some debate to go. But if we accept that as a general model of good negotiating practice for the ACT to take as we move forward on the basin plan as a whole then statements such as those in Mrs Dunne’s motion calling on the ACT government to vigorously defend the preservation of the ACT’s current diversion limit and commission the necessary expert or professional advice to support its defence of the current diversion limit must be rejected.
These statements, I believe, misunderstand the basin-wide reforms that are necessary and undermine the opportunity we are presented with to work constructively. We are part of the Murray-Darling Basin system and, therefore, we do have a role to play. I will come to this point again in a minute, but what that looks like in the end remains to be seen, and I think the attorney has highlighted areas where further work needs to be done. I do not think we can start from a place where we are saying, “Frankly, we have got our water allocation, we are keeping it, and the rest of you can go and do what you like. We’re fine, thanks, Jack.”
The ACT as a whole currently diverts 51 gigalitres of surface water from the Murray-Darling, according to the MDBA analysis, although I note, again, the minister’s comments, and I make the observation that around 11 gigalitres of this is unable to easily be intercepted as it is consumed by the ACT’s forestry plantation. That leaves around 40 gigalitres from which the ACT can make savings under the basin plan.
The ACT’s current usage under the cap is around 18 gigalitres. We use around 45 to 48 gigalitres, and we return around 30 gigalitres into the system, producing that net figure of around 18 gigalitres, or a little higher. So we are currently operating well within the cap that we have been set. The guide is currently proposing that the ACT play its part by returning between 13 to 18 gigalitres. If we were to take the maximum amount of that—that is, the 18 gigalitres—then, on the current numbers, the ACT would still be operating within the new sustainable diversion limit.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video