Page 3100 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
says that it will save potable water because the water captured in the network that is set up between Dickson, Lyneham and Mitchell will be able to be used for irrigation of playing fields and the like throughout the districts.
This is indeed a positive, Madam Assistant Speaker. It certainly addresses some of the issues associated with the environmental and social aspects of this project, although I do wonder how the local residents in Dickson and Lyneham might feel about the likelihood of mosquitoes, snakes and other fauna taking up residence in the vicinity of the ponds, particularly in Dickson and Lyneham. I have had feedback from people, especially around the Lyneham pond, who are concerned about these issues. There is a childcare centre in the area that has voiced these concerns with me. The president has raised it on a number of occasions, together with the current disruption to the centre being brought about by the works there.
While Mr Corbell is trumpeting the environmental and social benefits of this project, he has failed to properly assess the economic benefit of the project. He does not know how much he will be charging for the water that is to be extracted from the network. He has not assessed the likely demand. It is unclear whether the ICRC is taking the commonwealth contribution or the over-budget funding into consideration for working out this price. He does not know what impact the Murray-Darling Basin plan might have on the ability of the territory to capture water in a network. As is typical, we have got Mr Corbell only doing half the work before putting his hands into the pockets of taxpayers. In this case it is the planning, design and economic benefit analysis that have been left out of the equation.
I turn to the Murray-Darling Basin plan. As we know, this is very much a vexed issue across the entire basin. It could have serious consequences for the economic, social and environmental fabric of our community here in the ACT. Much has been said already about this and I will not repeat it here, except to say that it was the Canberra Liberals that took the lead on this issue when the guide to the proposed plan was released in October last year. Mr Corbell remained mute for a considerable period until he realised that the Canberra Liberals’ assessment of the issue was right on.
One of the other matters on which the Canberra Liberals took the lead was in making a submission to the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee’s inquiry into the commonwealth Water Act. In that submission I made three recommendations: firstly, that the act be amended to raise in prominence the need to optimise the economic, environmental and social outcomes under the plan so that all three are recognised as equally important. Secondly, that the Water Act 2007 be amended to require the authority in developing the plan to separate the different uses and different diversion rates across the catchment. Thirdly, we submitted that the Water Act be amended to make clear that the critical water needs of the Australian Capital Territory are protected in the same way they were in 1909.
Where was the government in this inquiry? It was nowhere to be seen, Madam Assistant Speaker. I actually did the government a favour because I provided the committee with a copy of the government’s submission that it made to the Windsor inquiry. I did that because I thought it was a good submission and worthy of support. In doing so, I stated that the submission was the government’s work. But Mr Corbell
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video