Page 1841 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(a) the net economic benefit of paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), with and without:
(i) the impact of the major water security projects; and
(ii) the potential impact of the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan; drawing conclusions in relation thereto;
(b) the economic, environmental and social impact of paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) on the community generally; and
(c) the options and alternatives available for the Government to consider in terms of water conservation initiatives that have the potential to deliver better and more viable economic, environmental and social outcomes; and
(4) calls on the Executive to table the ICRC’s final report on its inquiry by the last sitting day in 2011.
As members are aware, Mrs Dunne unfortunately cannot be here due to an illness of one of her children. She would obviously want to be here to discuss this important motion. Whether you agree with Mrs Dunne on these issues or not, there is no questioning her passion for these issues of water security for the ACT and there is no question that the government has had a piecemeal approach to secondary water uses in this city that has not been well considered.
We have heard about the programs for builders to drive to the lower Molonglo water treatment plant to collect non-potable water and drive it back for use on their building sites. We have heard about the government handing out free greywater hoses so that residents can divert untreated water from their washing machines to their gardens. We have seen the burgeoning number of urban waterway and stormwater capture projects. We have seen a range of water security measures being put in place. But where is the analysis for these measures? What impact do they have economically, socially and environmentally?
The motion I am proposing today on behalf of my colleague Mrs Dunne is designed to let us have a comprehensive and considered look at these matters. The genesis of this motion was quite some time ago when Mrs Dunne engaged in some informal discussions with the senior commissioner of the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission. In that discussion Mrs Dunne canvassed with the commissioner the possibility of the ICRC undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of the economic, social and environmental impact of the government’s urban waterways program.
At the time, there was considerable public concern about the government’s approach to the Lyneham wetland and the associated water capture and re-use project. There were concerns about a lack of public consultation and the money that was being spent and whether that investment was worth while economically. There were concerns about the change to the public amenity of the area, including the loss of a stand of trees to make way for the development. There were concerns about the economic viability of pumping water from the wetland to be used for the watering of nearby playing fields.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video