Page 4660 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This government has shown that you can have sensible water policy that delivers for the water needs of our community while also delivering for environmental needs. We have undertaken sensible conservation steps, changed community attitudes and increased capacity. These are elements that form the basis of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The plan is sound. As the largest urban area on the river, we have a direct interest in the health of the Murray-Darling river system. As a city that cares deeply about the environment, we have an important role in helping to ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is adhered to and delivered.
However, not all in this chamber share this view. The shadow minister for the environment is on the record as saying that the Murray-Darling is a matter for the commonwealth. She has come into this chamber to defend the rights of feral horses over protecting the territory’s precious upper alpine ecosystem that provides Canberra with some of Australia’s cleanest water supply.
Ms Lee’s comments on these issues remind me of a prominent misguided figure in our broader region. Her comments and approach are more right wing than those of the current Leader of the Opposition—something I did not think was possible. She has aligned herself with the leader of the New South Wales Nationals. These are just some of the actions that show that the Canberra Liberals shadow ministry comprises a spokesperson against the environment. In contrast, this government is providing services—water being the subject of today’s debate—while our city grows.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was really interested in the history lesson that you provided a little earlier in regard to the choice as to where a dam should go in the ACT. I remember the furore from those living in the Naas and Gudgenby valleys regarding the idea that the Canberra Liberals would want to build a dam at Tennent, in a rain shadow. I will quote from an Icon Water study regarding the Tennent opportunity. Under “rural leasehold”, they say:
The residents of the Naas and Gudgenby valleys will be seriously affected if a decision is made to proceed with a Tennent reservoir as residential and agricultural activity would be precluded from the catchment. Inclusion of the existing rural lessees in the planning and analysis process has been given a high priority in an endeavour to ensure that they are as fully informed as possible as work progresses.
A key issue for the Tennent reservoir proposal is the impact of the ongoing uncertainty and, if it is built, the reservoir itself, on the valley residents. The proposal affects 14 rural holdings.
Some of the leases that would be subject to acquisition are either short term or include clauses (“land withdrawal clauses”) providing for the withdrawal of the lease should the land be required by the Government. Although the residents have therefore been aware of the possibility of a reservoir for a long time, they nevertheless have strong links with the land and in some cases occupation has been multi generational. Some of the leases are for longer terms and have renewal rights. These would be resumed under the Lands Acquisition Act.
Not so long ago it was a matter of sticking up for the rights of a number of people in the Coombs area, ensuring that we can provide them with a little bit of area on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video