Page 2290 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Collaery: When is your Government going to order an environmental impact study for anything in this city?
MR WOOD: You have not seen all the things that have been happening, Mr Collaery. I do not question Senator Richardson's genuine concern, but I do question the briefings that he has been given. The Murray-Darling system, into which these waters from the Molonglo flow, is a major system of the world and certainly Australia's greatest. It has already suffered enough damage in 200 years of our more recent settlement and we should see that we do nothing more to add to that damage.
Do we need an environmental impact statement on such matters? In Australia already we have seen the devastation that can be wrought by means of introduced species, beginning with the rabbits, then with the cactus, cane toads, buffaloes, sparrows - you name it. We have done a great deal to destroy our natural environment. In this system already we have introduced carp and redfin. We have done that. So we make the clear claim that we do not want any more introduced species in the Murray-Darling system that will do potential damage. They do not belong there; we do not want them there. That would have the potential for damage. I accept that. I do not need anybody to tell me that we do not want anything more put into that river system. That being the case, the real issue is that we do not want fish getting out of this aquarium. It has to be a secure system; that is the overriding requirement.
Senator Richardson might consider whether the aquarium should have been built on a tributary of that major system. But it is there, it has been approved properly by all departments and, short of dismantling it, all we can we do is look at the systems in the aquarium - and the committee has done that exhaustively. We have done it with advisers, and our conclusion is that the system at the National Aquarium is sound. It is as safe as it can possibly be. We have made, as Mr Humphries pointed out, a number of relatively minor, though certainly important, recommendations on a number of related issues. But, on the basic issue of the soundness of that system and the right for the development to proceed, our decision is that it should go ahead, and good luck to everybody concerned.
MR MOORE (11.24): Recommendation 4 of the committee states:
The Minister with portfolio responsibilities for the Environment should provide the Conservator with the necessary resources for him/her to determine the impact on the region of the freshwater species and organisms which are not indigenous to the area and proposed to be displayed in the aquarium, before any licence to import is issued; and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .