Page 1129 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I did wonder at the time about the quality of the water. We did survive. We are still here today and no ill effects, really. It is also true that we often walk our dogs in the area. Being the sorts of dogs they are, they do like to swim and often show particular enthusiasm to swim in Lake Burley Griffin. But I would not dare let my dogs swim in Lake Burley Griffin for the same reasons. Blue-green algae has a worse impact on dogs than it seems to have on people.
So I welcome this motion that has been moved here today. I welcome the spirit of the conversation, as Mr Rattenbury said, about dealing with this. I do not have a problem with the concept and I do not have a problem with the premise that there are issues in relation to the state of the water. But Mr Rattenbury has touched on my concerns as well, unwittingly. There are people already who have responsibility in this area and they are, in fact, listed in Mr Rattenbury’s motion.
The New South Wales government, or at least the Queanbeyan City Council, has responsibility in this area, as do the ACT government and the National Capital Authority. I have a problem not with the concept of commissioning the commissioner for the environment to do the report, but I think that there has to be cross-border, cross-jurisdictional agreement that this should happen for it to be effective. At this stage I do not think that we can see ourselves in a position to commission the commissioner to do a report unless there is sign-off by the other jurisdictions.
I do not believe that there has been that sign-off at this stage. Therefore, I have moved the amendment that has been circulated, which calls on the government to work with the relevant New South Wales state and local government agencies as well as the National Capital Authority to develop an action plan for improvement. That may or may not involve the commissioner for the environment, but we actually have to have everybody in the one room, reading from the one page and being at one on this.
This is an important issue. I think it is important that we make progress on this and perhaps we should be looking to use the winter months to make progress so that the lake could be more inviting for next summer. While I commend Mr Rattenbury for the motion, the spirit and the overall concept, I do not believe that we are in a position where we can unilaterally have the commissioner undertake this investigation without the sign-off of the other jurisdictions.
Without the sign-off of the other jurisdictions, we could not put into effect anything that the commissioner might suggest. At this stage, therefore, I suggest to the Assembly that my way forward is a superior one, but it does not rule out the involvement of the commissioner for the environment.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Chief Minister, do you wish to speak to this amendment or are you moving your own? Your own amendment is consequent on Mr Rattenbury’s motion. It hangs on whether Mrs Dunne’s amendment is successful or otherwise. It may be better if we deal with Mrs Dunne’s amendment and then come back to yours.
Mrs Dunne: How about you speak to the amendment and then we give you leave to speak to yours if mine does not succeed?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video