Page 5178 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
While that seems eminently doable right now and into the medium term, there have been concerns raised about the impact of a diminishing cap in light of an increasing population. I note the minister has made this point publicly where he has observed that in the short and medium term this suggested diversion limit might not be a problem in the ACT but it would be in the long term. This is certainly a valid point to be raising, and one which I will come back to shortly. But before we get into the details of this, I think we need to take a good look at all the information and acknowledge the process that the MDBA have established.
One of the saddest things about the way this debate is playing out across the region is that political pressure and the loudest voices seem to have impacted on what, in many ways, was a reasonable process that the MDBA have outlined. This is the beginning of a long consultation process—it is important that the ACT consults, but let us consult in a way that we remain open to discussions and negotiations, rather than going in all guns blazing and fighting over our bit of water. For example, it is important that we recognise now that the MBDA has applied a principle of equal percentage reductions right across the basin at this early stage of consultation.
This principle is up for discussion, and future iterations of the plan are likely to have a more sophisticated response to these questions: should reductions operate on a principle of equal reductions, or should we seek some other method to calculate how the amount that we need to return to the system is shared around or allocated or retrieved from various current users. We may be able to put a case that it should not and that urban centres should have preferential treatment, but I would like to see that case laid out in a well-made argument before I would support it.
It is interesting to note that the ACT can and does purchase further water from the water market outside of the sustainable diversion cap. Actew has over the past few years moved towards purchasing 20 gigalitres of general security water licences on behalf of the people of the ACT so that we can then convert them to 10 gigalitres of high security water licences and support the Tantangara transfer option under the major water security projects. We can in the ACT afford to pay more for our water in the city, and we do thus far seem to be doing so.
It is important to acknowledge that the ACT has reduced its water consumption by around one-third over the past 10 years down to around 45 gigalitres, as I mentioned earlier. I note that the motion today makes mention that this has only been done under stage 2 and stage 3 water restrictions. That is an interesting observation in light of the debate we had last week where Mrs Dunne and Mr Corbell were advocating strongly for the removal of water restrictions. Now they are arguing the case for a higher water entitlement under the basin plan. I think this is where we really need to do some thinking about what our long-term position is going to be. But either way, the ACT has done a good job so far of improving our water efficiency.
The question of population growth and future water needs is a slightly fraught one. I note that the Assembly will be investigating this issue in the context of the ecological carrying capacity inquiry that will also investigate issues around water and food production for the ACT and surrounding regions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video