Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3113 ..

MS DUNDAS (11.19): Without a doubt there is room for improvement in the government’s recent strategy for sustainable water resource management. However, we need to think about whether disallowing a document will help us get closer to the ecologically sustainable management of our water resources.

I would have preferred to see possible amendments put forward to the strategy so that, instead of disallowing the whole thing, we could keep bits that put forward some good ideas and then maybe take the detail on or remove parts that are of particular objection. Instead, we have a motion of disallowance for the entire strategy, even though it contains many elements that, I think from this discussion, we all support.

That being said, there are things that I believe are missing from this document, such as the commitment to harnessing and re-using stormwater and a commitment to new infrastructure for water recycling. I would have liked to work through, and possibly move, amendments to this strategy. However, with time constraints and the fact that this is a very detailed document it just was not possible. I think we would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we disallowed the entire document, because it is missing a few elements.

Arguments have been put forward that the plan does not comply with the Water Resources Act. I have reviewed section 19 of the Water Resources Act and obtained some advice form the department, and it appears that the plan does comply with the requirements. The information provided and the commitments made may not be as detailed as we might all wish, but I think that the document complies with the letter of the law.

I refer to the table on page 10 of volume 3, which, together with the statement on page 43 of volume 1 and the environmental flow guidelines, satisfies the requirement of subsection (a) of section 19 of the act to describe the water resources of the territory and the environmental needs of our waterways. The table on page 10 of volume 3 clearly satisfies the requirement of subsection 19 (b) to provide projections of allocations through to 2014.

The subcatchment and water resource description pages comply with the requirements of subsection 19 (c) because they state what purposes the water in each subcatchment will be put to. I think it is fair to say that the three-volume set that is “Think water, act water” complies with the requirements of subsection 19 (d), even though I agree that there is a lack of specificity in some areas.

That being said, my main disappointment with the government’s water strategy is that it does not commit to 100 per cent water recycling. This goal would prevent the need for a new dam, even if the ACT’s population growth were at the top end of the projections. When I opened debate on this issue last year, the head of ACTEW said that 100 per cent water recycling was a feasible long-term goal.

The “Think water, act water” plan is meant to take us through to 2050, but it sets only a conservative recycling goal of 20 per cent. That being said, I also have doubts that the government will be able to meet that modest target, when there is nothing in the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .