Page 1623 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The bill does a number of other things. There might be a little bit of controversy in how this bill actually pans out, but that is often the case. It brings groundwater under the control of the territory. It also brings about the specification of possible future use quantities. It also makes the allocation of water on the basis of a determined proportion or share of a sustainable yield of a catchment management area instead of an allocation by volume. I think that is quite sensible. It is a bit problematic if you have a first in, best dressed situation. I think it is far better to have a more sensible policy such as this one.
I am pleased that the bill does provide for a transition period of 12 months so that existing arrangements can be moved to the new without undue inconvenience, save that a number of existing bore licence holders ultimately will be required to pay an abstraction charge they do not pay now. We do have about 95 or so bores in the ACT. Additional bores for people to use have been stopped. Whilst that is a bit of a shame for some people who might otherwise have them, it is probably not unreasonable given our dire water crisis.
The minister, in introducing this bill, claimed that we need “more specific controls on how trading is managed”. Whilst that is true, the new provisions are not particularly different from the old ones. There are more words, but the effect is essentially the same. Nevertheless, the preservation of trading rules through market forces, with the proper approvals and subject to certain conditions, continues to facilitate the potential for increased use of groundwater instead of potable water for aspects such as the irrigation of ovals.
I am pleased to see the ability in terms of trading for, for example, an orchard at Pialligo which might want to lay farrow for a year or two to sell its water rights to the property next door for that period. I think that is sensible. There is also the possibility under this legislation for people or groups in the suburbs who have access to a bore to sell that water to, say, a school oval or a sporting ground. That does increase the potential to maintain some of our crucial community assets and I think it is a sensible move.
We are pleased that the bill enables the ACT to meet its obligations under the national water initiative. Indeed, we understand that a number of measures that this bill contemplates put the ACT well ahead of the rest of the country, and that is quite good. There will be some people, especially people with bore licences, who will be concerned about that. There were some problems with some of the initial provisions in terms of government officials coming onto people’s property without due regard for their privacy and their rights.
There will be some complaints, no doubt, from people who feel that their unrestricted use of water in the past has been perhaps unduly trammelled upon by bureaucrats. That is something we will watch with care to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of the community and the rights of people who have had the ability to tap into a bore and whose ability now will be somewhat restricted, being restricted to what is proper use at any point in time. I am pleased to see that people will now be allocated a percentage of water for use and that, if for that catchment area the usage
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .