Page 1843 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Another factor that was at play in all of this was the major water security projects. This government, through its territory-owned corporation Actew, is spending more than half a billion dollars to secure Canberra’s water supply. There is the extension to the Cotter dam, which is costing $363 million. There is the Murrumbidgee to Googong pipeline, which is costing $150 million. There is the purchase of rights to water held in Tantangara reservoir—who knows how much that is, but I have heard figures in the order of $45 million. And there is the Cotter to Googong transfer and its continuing cost to pump water uphill.
I will leave aside the questions of project management, budgeting and cost blow-outs because much has been said about that already. But because more needs to be said later I will for now also leave aside the question of how long these projects will provide water security. Suffice it to say at this point that the managing director of Actew Corporation said, on the one hand, that Canberra families would be paying an extra $220 per year for these projects “forever”. On the other, he has said that the projects would provide Canberra with water security for 25 years. He further has stated that completion of the water security projects would herald the farewell to water restrictions for Canberra.
The next matter that exercised Mrs Dunne’s mind was the release in October last year of the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan. This matter was a pivotal factor in Mrs Dunne’s resolve that an inquiry was needed. The government and the opposition are at one in terms of an assessment of the impact that the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan would, if implemented, have on Canberra’s access to water without restriction.
The bottom line is that, were the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan to be implemented, Canberra would be facing permanent stage 3 or perhaps even stage 4 water restrictions. This is because the plan calls for a reduction of up to 45 per cent in diversion limits. This would put our maximum consumption allowance at about the levels that were used during the years of stage 3 water restrictions that we endured. It is a pity that the Greens cannot find themselves to be at one with the government and opposition on this issue. Their position, both here in the ACT and nationally, is that everything should be done to support the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan.
In truth, though, for the ACT the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan fails to allow for population, economic and social growth and it fails to take account of our excellent performance as the largest urban community in the basin, in terms of both reducing consumption and returning water to the river system for environmental flows. It fails to take account of the fact that the ACT, representing 17 per cent of the basin’s population, diverts less than one per cent of the water that is available in the ACT. Indeed the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan leaves out any analysis of its impact on the ACT because it might skew the results for the rest of the basin. I do not know how the Greens can ignore such obvious flaws in the arguments proposed in the Murray-Darling Basin plan.
In addition, the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan brings into question the economic, social and environmental viability of all water sources available to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video