Page 4653 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
future is talking to children to start an awareness campaign on water conservation. This is incredibly important because what we do now will significantly impact the future of the next generation. It is our responsibility to ensure that we are leaving a positive future for the next generation. (Extension of time granted.)
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I believe that it is our responsibility to act pre-emptively on current and future challenges so that we do not reach a point where our lifestyle and environment are compromised. Consultation with water stakeholders and experts will inform the future direction to ensure our water security. Consultation will also allow the ACT government to assess the progress we have made and to discuss ways to ensure that we are preserving our water for future generations. The results of this consultation should be reported back to the Assembly before 1 July 2020.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (3.40): I thank Mr Gupta for bringing forward his motion on this very important issue. The issue of water security has been an abiding interest of mine for some time. I do not particularly want to rain, so to speak, on Mr Gupta’s parade—the motion that he has brought on is a very important one—but for a variety of reasons his understanding of the history of water security in the ACT is a little faulty, because it does not go back far enough.
In 2003 the Canberra Liberals advocated for water security. We advocated for the building of the Tennent dam. We advocated for the building of the Tennent dam over enlarging the Cotter dam because the Tennent dam is a gravity-fed dam; you do not have to expend power on pumping water if you need to extract water, as you do if you want to extract water from the enlarged Cotter dam.
It would be an understatement to say that at that time sections of the ACT community just about literally set their hair on fire. The Conservation Council, the Greens and the Labor government just about set their hair on fire at the prospect—the audacity to propose that in this town we build a new dam to compensate for the rising population and the fact that we were facing a drought at the time; we were in the beginning throes of what was called the millennium drought.
It was very entertaining. Many people on this side of the house like to quote Mr Stanhope these days. I will quote Mr Stanhope, but not to his benefit. At the time, and in this place, Mr Stanhope said that we would not need to build another dam. “Not for 20 years,” he said; “Perhaps not in my lifetime.” He went on to say that even if we built the dam it would probably never fill.
Somewhere along the line, Mr Stanhope had a Damascus-like conversion, about which I am very pleased. As is always the case with the Labor Party, if the Liberal Party suggests something, the Labor Party cannot come along and say, “Actually that is not a bad idea; perhaps we should do it.” Mr Stanhope was put in a position where he was eventually convinced that he had to build a dam, but he was blowed if he was going to build the dam suggested by the Canberra Liberals, so he came up with the proposal for the enlarged Cotter dam. As I said, Madam Speaker, the enlarged Cotter dam is better than no dam, but it is very expensive to run. That is why we do not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video