Page 2701 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 10 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
An issue which is regularly raised with members of the Assembly is the price of water for high-volume users such as sporting clubs in particular but also other community groups. I know that there are numerous golf courses around the ACT that are very concerned about how the ICRC rules apply to them and I think an area for this government or a future government to investigate is what relief is going to be possible for these high water users.
It is especially so with regard to the complexity of the legislation and regulations regarding water usage, especially including dams and bore water. I know that there are some complexities in that space. I know that there are several threshold years that are significant when dams or weirs are established. That is, of course, another layer of difficulty with regard to resolving the issue. But one way or another there does have to be some dedication or some commitment by this government or a future government to making water more affordable for high-volume users who are, in effect, community groups.
The other point that I want to make mention of is—again it is another potential structural issue with regard to water pricing in the ACT—with regard to offsite works that are often associated with infrastructure projects such as a residential development or a commercial development. When offsite works are undertaken, such as work on the stormwater system or on sewerage, those offsite works are often gifted to Icon for their management. However, because they are gifted rather than being acquired through market value, it means that the value of those assets does not form part of the basis for determining pricing in the ACT. I know that is a difficult area because, if you did include the market value of all those assets, it would drive up the price of water in the ACT. At the same time you have a situation where Icon is struggling to meet the maintenance requirements of all these assets. Again, we are not flagging that we have a silver bullet here but it is an area of concern and it goes to, again, a structural issue that either this government or a future government, I think, will need to address.
Finally, I will just briefly touch on two paragraphs which are relevant for the ICRC. They come from a report prepared by the ICRC and are referenced in the bulk water alliance report of the Auditor-General. It is the ICRC’s final report into water security as of June 2010. The paragraphs read:
It is clear to the Commission that the $145 million estimate was deficient for the purposes of approving the [Enlarged Cotter Dam] project due to the preliminary nature of the estimates as well as an absence of market testing of the costs assumed in 2007. Additional feasibility studies were required to ensure that the costs were tested and the design of the dam refined. The Commission is concerned that the $145 million estimate was used in the decision to recommend the dam in 2007 to the ACT government.
As a consequence, ACTEW at that time made decisions which favoured the [Enlarged Cotter Dam], and the favouring of this one option influenced the process for considering other options. The Commission is concerned that the 2007 recommendation ultimately led to the decision to proceed with the [Enlarged Cotter Dam] in 2009 despite the economic returns associated with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video