Page 1846 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
these projects by the ICRC until these projects are physically complete. We should recognise though that, in working towards finalisation of the Canberra urban waterways project, it will be a requirement that the ICRC provide advice on the pricing of the water to be made available from these non-potable sources. So we have a process already where the ICRC is required to give advice on what the reasonable price should be for the supply of water from this source.
The second reason that this inquiry proposed by Mrs Dunne is not warranted at this time is that the government is already in the process of commencing its own review of the ACT’s broad water strategy—think water, act water. This provides the broad framework to examine both supply through primary sources, through centralised network sources such as the reticulated water network and the water security projects that I mentioned earlier and secondary water use systems such as greywater systems and other demand reduction strategies as well.
The strategy is currently in the process of being reviewed for a revised water resource strategy for the territory. The review of think water, act water will examine the possible scope and opportunities for expanding secondary water systems in the territory in the context of the broader potable water supply and demand aspects. This vital piece of work will carefully examine the scope and use of non-potable water targets and applications for the territory.
It is acknowledged that the implementation of fit-for-purpose secondary water systems at scale can reduce the demand for potable water. The potential use of such systems clearly will be dependent on the application and costs of such systems, matters which are going to be explored through the review of think water, act water. It would be pre-emptive, in the government’s view to ask the ICRC to undertake an investigation of secondary water use without the benefit of the findings of the review of think water, act water.
Let me turn now to the issue of the Murray-Darling Basin plan. Members will be aware that the implications on the territory of the proposals in the guide to the draft plan as released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority late last year are of very serious consequence for the territory. But we now have a situation where there is a new chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Mr Craig Knowles, and an entirely new process for finalising what the draft plan will actually contain. The draft plan will also be informed by the work being done by the House of Representatives inquiry chaired by Mr Windsor, which the ACT has given evidence before. And indeed it will also be informed by the very considerable work that is now being undertaken at an officials’ level and at the community’s level by relevant Murray-Darling Basin ministers, of which the ACT has a representative.
The challenge in agreeing to the ICRC referral proposal Mrs Dunne has made is that it has to have regard to a plan—that is, the Murray-Darling Basin plan—which has not yet been made. Indeed, the content of that plan is far from certain. What we do know is that it will not be as proposed in the guide to the draft plan released by the authority late last year. We know that is the case because the current chair of the authority, Mr Knowles, has informed the public, communities and the relevant Murray-Darling Basin ministers that those proposals are not going to be advanced further. But we do not know in detail what the alternatives will be.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video