Page 321 - Week 01 - Thursday, 29 November 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Over the last ten years, there has been a steady increase in the number of lake closures per year, because of either faecal contamination or potentially toxic blue-green algae in the water. Between 2007 and 2011 there were several instances of elevated concentrations of algae and pathogens in ACT lakes, which resulted in a number of human health alerts and lake closures. Greater focus is needed on the management of ACT lakes to improve water quality so that recreation activities are not restricted.
If you go on to wetlands, 13 of the ACT’s wetlands are listed in the national directory of important wetlands in Australia. But are we looking after them? Who knows? The report says:
Information on the health of ACT wetlands is patchy with few projects surveying riparian health and water quality. Wetland health has been variable in those that have been surveyed. One of the challenges for management of wetlands is the individuality that characterises each wetland.
If you read through the report, it is quite clear that the importance of healthy lakes and waterways to the future of the ACT has not been taken seriously by the Labor Party. It has not been taken seriously by a succession of Labor environment ministers, and it has not been taken seriously such that we get to the state today where we had a full report which the minister is yet to report on and will do so in detail early in the new year.
The government has also embarked on a number of projects to help improve the quality of inflows to our lakes and waterways, so we have to look again at the efficiency and efficacy of these projects. These included stormwater capture projects and urban waterways projects, including reticulation for irrigation purposes—laudable enough—and I put on record for those that have not been here for a long time that the first of these, of course, was the City Edge, a project for which I was responsible as the minister for both planning and the environment. That has worked extremely well. It set a standard. Unfortunately that standard has not been followed and not been adhered to by those that came after that government.
The projects government have done are laudable enough. The health of our lakes in particular is under serious pressure, suffering from heightened littering, the effects of exotic fish species, blue-green algae and, indeed in the case of Lake Burley Griffin, even raw sewage from Queanbeyan.
But the government’s approach has been idealistic rather than practical. The projects that have been delivered have been marred by huge cost overruns, a lack of economic analysis and no idea of what charges to make for water use for irrigation.
I refer to the ICRC in its report on secondary water use released in July 2012, which brings into serious question the economic viability of public secondary water use projects and urban waterway projects. The report recommended, in fact, that further public secondary water investment not be undertaken now. It also concluded that urban waterway projects were poorly evaluated as to their cost-benefit analysis and recommended that further activity in this area be restricted to trialling an inner north pilot stormwater project.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video