Page 1632 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some detail during the detail stage of this debate, but I think it is important to put our concerns on the record immediately.
The provisions in the Bill that allow for a water allocations regime are provisions which we have enormous difficulty with because, at the end of the day, the allocations process is as much about putting in place a tradeable regime as required under agreements of the Council of Australian Governments as it is about protecting the environmental qualities of watercourses and other water resources.
It is interesting to go to the last page of the Chief Minister’s tabling speech. It says:
In summary, the new approach to water allocations and the associated measures provided for by this bill will lead to … the implementation of commitments made through the National Water Initiative …
There we have it. We have a complete reversal of Labor’s position. They did not want a water trading system, but now they do. We welcome that; that is a good thing. It is good to see progress.
I went back and compared the existing bill with the new bill. In the main they are pretty much the same on the issue of allocations. There is slightly more detail in some of the sections that the Chief Minister presents, but the basic structure is the same. In 1998 Mr Corbell said:
The Government has suggested that water allocations, in combination with a licence system and the use of environmental flow guidelines, will provide the greatest possible level of environmental protection. I would argue that this position fails to recognise that the water allocations proposal is closely tied to provisions to allow for the trading and sale of such allocations and that this is probably the most significant potential change to the management and demand for the Territory’s water resources.
When I look through the Chief Minister’s bill, there is environmental flows, there is licensing and there is water allocation.
Nine years down the track, it has not changed a great deal. I understand the updating of language and the greater knowledge that we have. I acknowledge that the Chief Minister, in his work, has come up with different catchment systems. I think anything that simplifies what we have and what we know and makes it easier to understand the legislation is a worthwhile thing to do. It is a reasonable approach where the catchments are larger and more easily identifiable. That is a good thing as well.
It is interesting to have this back-flip. It is a shame that it has taken so long. It is a good thing that the opposition in this case will stand up and support rather than oppose. We understand how important this is; we do understand that the future—of not just the local environment but the local community, the local industry and those who come to visit: indeed, the future of the bush capital—depends on how it is seen. Water plays an enormous part in that.
Unfortunately, today we have the announcement that, following a meeting of facilities management with the sport and recreation department, something like 80 per cent of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .