Page 1131 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is an interesting and overlapping range of issues. We saw highlighted just this week an issue of an exotic lily that has gained a foothold in the Jerrabomberra wetlands. There are issues in relation to water quality generally, the level of nutrients, where they are coming from, the control and management of upstream rivers and all watercourses. There is an issue around exotic plants and their impact. One of those exotic plants is the willow. There are weed and tree management issues. There is the issue of the extent of nutrients and how they find their way into the lake.
There is, interestingly, also the capacity to deal with carp. An issue that I have discussed even in the last year with Territory and Municipal Services is whether there is not an approach that is not as resource intensive as some of the suggestions that are made in relation to how best to control carp. I have had conversations with Professor Tony Peacock relating to his interest in the CRC on feral species—I wish I could remember the correct name. I have had an interesting conversation with both him and the combined fishing clubs of the ACT. Interestingly, they have indicated that they would be prepared to work with the government and with the CRC on an approach to deal with the level of carp infestation in our waterways. These are issues that would certainly benefit from an airing and from a review by the commissioner.
I will complete my remarks, rather than repeat the arguments and concerns expressed by Mr Rattenbury, by noting, as I said earlier, that I think we all share a level of concern. I do not disagree in essence with anything that Mr Rattenbury has said in support of this particular motion. I have indicated that I have some amendments.
I do understand the thrust of Mrs Dunne’s amendments but I do not share the level of her concern that even without that cross-institutional or cross-border relationship or cooperation that the commissioner could not, if asked, deliver a very good report that would provide an evidence base that would be very useful in our future management of all our lakes, not just Lake Burley Griffin.
I would like to think that the NCA, who do have ultimate authority—this very much goes to Mrs Dunne’s issue—would be similarly grateful for the work that the commissioner could do. At one level, I think it is fair to suggest that we are probably doing the NCA’s work for it to some extent. In latter years I have adopted more and more a particular view in relation to our relationship with the NCA and the cross-over responsibilities. It is that we have reached the stage in our development where we cannot afford not to engage where the issues go to the nature and the quality of our city. We cannot all the time say that it is not really our responsibility. It is our city; it is our waterway; it is a major recreational resource for us. It is not what it should be. It is in the interests of all Canberrans that we do what we can.
I acknowledge the good sense of the motion. I think it is a very worthwhile motion with a very worthwhile suggestion. The government is prepared to support it but would prefer to support it in terms of the amendments which I will move in a moment. With great respect, Mrs Dunne, the government will not support your amendment, although I do understand it. I will be moving amendments in a moment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video