Page 5180 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on the amount of water that needs to be put back. The second puts a position on the way we believe the ACT should be approaching the negotiating table, so I seek leave to move the amendments together.
Leave granted.
MR RATTENBURY: I move the amendments to Mr Corbell’s amendments circulated in my name together:
(1) Before paragraph (1)(a), insert (1)(aa):
“(aa) that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has proposed that between 3,000 GL and 7,600 GL of additional water needs to be returned to the waterways of the Murray-Darling to restore key environmental assets and key ecosystem functions across the Basin;”.
(2) Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) calls on the ACT Government to engage in a constructive way with the current consultation process on the Basin Plan to assess how it might contribute to the proposed returns through a reduction in the ACT’s diversion and/or improved efficiency measures in the ACT;”.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.03): I will address both sets of amendments in my remarks. Firstly, I would like to thank Mr Rattenbury and Mr Corbell for the generous and constructive way we discussed these matters at the lunchbreak. But I think we got to a situation where there is a level of agreement and there are some things that we will have to agree to disagree on.
Mr Corbell has moved some amendments today, some of which are matters of minor detail I would agree with, others that I think are a bit of a quibble and others that I still strongly disagree with. I think it is about style and approach to issues. I am still not satisfied that the government’s “softly, softly, catchee monkey” approach is entirely the right way to go. I do not think that the government has done enough to engage the community on the importance of this issue because it has had almost nothing to say.
I think it is actually quite comforting to some extent to hear the minister talk about the things that he is concerned about both during the discussions we had over lunch and in his remarks here today. It is revealing that on many of the things that I have been concerned about and Mr Corbell has been fairly silent about, we actually share the same concerns. I am concerned about the type of language and the approach that Mr Corbell is taking on this on behalf of the people of the ACT.
Part of the motivation of this motion was essentially to put some fire under the ACT government to stand up for the people of the ACT. I do not resile from a requirement for asking on behalf of the people of the ACT that the ACT government vigorously defend our water allocation. Part of the reason why we should vigorously defend our water allocation has been touched on by the minister here today.
The ACT has made substantial inroads. It has cut back its water use quite considerably. We have agreed to a cap which was much less than that which we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video