Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

recognises the vital importance of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system for Sydney’s population and the New South Wales economy;

(2)

expresses its concern at the degradation of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment and the poor health of the river;

(3)

recognises that the Hawkesbury-Nepean bears the brunt of the State Government’s failure to adequately plan for Sydney’s water needs; and

(4)

calls on the New South Wales Government as a matter of urgency to address the issues facing the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river.

The Hawkesbury-Nepean river system is arguably Australia’s most important river system. Its 22,000 square kilometre catchment area generates drinking water for almost five million Australian people. It generates 70 per cent of the goods and services produced in New South Wales and its horticultural and agricultural produce amounts to some $1 billion a year. It also provides a water playground for Western Sydney, itself generating probably $100 million worth of tourism expenditure and, in the broader catchment, several hundred million dollars worth a year. Yet, sadly, the Hawkesbury-Nepean river is in a very fragile state, suffering from low environmental flows and excessively high nutrient levels. Some 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the flow in the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system in times of low flow is treated effluent from the large number of STPs in the upper parts of the catchment, producing some hundred megalitres a day of treated effluent into the system. The manifestations of this are in the large outbreaks of weed that we see. A couple of years ago, there was a terrible outbreak of Salvinia molesta and, more recently, Agraria and algal blooms are seen from time to time in the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system.

Sadly, the Hawkesbury-Nepean has suffered from years of neglect by the state Labor government. In 2001 we saw the abolition of the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority, which had been established by the Greiner government some years before. That catchment management authority very effectively coordinated the activities of a large number of community organisations focused on improving qualities of land management, riparian management and so on that affected the quality of the Hawkesbury River system.

In 2004 we saw the scrapping by the state government of core funding for the local government advisory group consisting of eight councils that together generated several million dollars a year in funding for local hands-on projects that again improved the quality of parts of that catchment. In 2004 we also saw the axing of the recreational water assessment monitoring program which, in my electorate alone, monitored eight sites frequently throughout summer to check the health of the water in the Hawkesbury-Nepean and some of its tributaries. It monitored the safety of water for recreational users.

So on one hand we have seen the neglect of issues affecting the health of the river and on the other the removal in 2004 of the ability to monitor the health of the river and the quality of the water—to the detriment of recreational water users: waterskiers, boaters and swimmers in the river. If you were cynical you might argue that it was a deliberate attempt to conceal from river users the effects of the removal of those other programs that actually were instrumental in trying to improve the quality of health in the river.

Then in May last year we saw the cutting of the environmental flows out of Warragamba Dam by 50 per cent. I know that was in response to the drought, and for emergency reasons perhaps that had to be done. But, if there had been serious long-term planning to address Sydney’s water needs, that desperate measure may have been avoidable. The cutting of environmental flows by 50 per cent has had serious downstream effects in the Hawkesbury River.

This is the point: the failure of the government to adequately plan for Sydney’s water needs has had a serious effect downstream, affecting residents all along the Hawkesbury River. The delay in completing the formal water plan for the Sydney region that is part of the state government’s responsibility as part of the National Water Initiative, to which it is a signatory, is indicative of its failure in this regard. There are a number of short-term, stopgap measures that we have seen. As I said, there has been the government’s decision to cut the environmental flows by half. There has been the decision to pump deeper into the Warragamba Dam. That might help in the short term, but it is not a sustainable solution. The desalination fiasco, which cost tens of millions of dollars, has come up with no solution at all. And now there is the decision to pump from the Shoalhaven.

The point is this: the state government, instead of undertaking a series of stopgap, headline measures to put bandaids on the problem, needs to seriously address the water demand and the water supply in Sydney and seriously undertake recycling programs— (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That speech by the member for Macquarie was an extraordinary performance by a member of parliament who has sat on the government benches for over 10 years—on the back bench, it is true, but on the government benches nonetheless. His failure to mention any responsibility whatsoever by the federal government with regard to water reflects the fact that the federal government has been missing in action when it comes to national water policy in this country. We have a situation where the government has just got around to appointing a parliamentary secretary for water. The issue is not important enough for the government to have someone on the frontbench! The Labor Party has the water portfolio in the shadow cabinet, which reflects the important function that we see water playing and the important responsibility that we have in terms of having national leadership.

I certainly agree that the Hawkesbury-Nepean is a river of national significance. Its water helps to generate 70 per cent of goods and services in New South Wales, as well as providing drinking water for over four million residents of Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains. The Hawkesbury-Nepean is one of the most varied catchments in Australia. It supports a population of nearly one million people, generates over $1 billion each year in agriculture, and supports a $6 million a year commercial fishing industry and 43,000 recreational fishers. It supplies 80 per cent of the sand and gravel used in Sydney’s construction industry, worth an estimated $100 million a year; provides 23 per cent of New South Wales’s electricity through water from its rivers; and supports an extensive underground coalmining industry.

All these elements combine to place significant pressure on the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. That is why the New South Wales government deserves congratulations for developing strategies to deliver Sydney’s water supply and taking action to improve the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean. In July 2001, the New South Wales government established the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Management Forum, which is supported by an independent expert panel. The government adopted the forum’s recommendations for environmental flows from the upper Nepean dams and incorporated those into the 2004 metropolitan water plan. This water sharing plan, which will include the Hawkesbury-Nepean, will contain rules for the sharing of water between the environment and water users. The water sharing plan will provide statutory protection for environmental flows in the Hawkesbury-Nepean and will limit extractions for consumptive use. Environmental flow rules will be incorporated in the Sydney Catchment Authority’s water licence.

The New South Wales government’s Hawkesbury-Nepean river restoration project is one of the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority’s three flagship incentive funding projects, the others being its bushland conservation project and the catchment protection scheme. These projects alone saw over $5 million invested in 2005-06, resulting in 94 kilometres of riverbank undergoing rehabilitation and weed control, 2,432 hectares of land being treated for soil erosion, 331 hectares of remnant native vegetation being protected, 90 kilometres of riverbank and gullies being fenced, 114,000 native trees being planted and 17 hectares of land being treated for salinity. These were all achievements of the state Labor government.

These are just some examples of the positive actions being undertaken by the catchment management authority, which will result in the improved health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean. Instead of criticising the New South Wales government, what government members should be doing is asking their frontbench—asking the Prime Minister—why they have done nothing to improve the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean. This is a consistent theme when it comes to the federal government: it is all the states’ faults. We know that, on the issue of water, they have refused to come to the party, they disagree over whether there should be water trading, they have disagreed whether there should be a buyback on a voluntary basis and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry disagrees with the parliamentary secretary for water. When it comes to state governments offering up big initiatives, we know of course that when Cubby was offered up—a plan in 2004 by the Queensland Labor government—the federal government would not have a bar of it. It was reform that would have returned water to the whole Murray-Darling system. (Time expired)

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler has obviously and clearly shown his complete lack of understanding of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. Coming from the inner city suburb of Marrickville, it is no wonder. How he could have sat in parliament for 10 years and missed the fact that our government is investing $12.9 million into the Hawkesbury-Nepean investment blueprint, compared to the New South Wales government’s paltry $1.2 million, is disgraceful and it is no wonder he is leaving very quickly. He is exiting the chamber before he learns a little more about what this government has done for the health of the Nepean catchment management system. This is appalling neglect by this absolutely lazy and quick-fix state government led now by Morris Iemma but previously by Bob Carr.

The state government’s response to this major problem has been a sort of a short-term quick-fix approach that we have seen with pretty much everything else. They have basically cut the environmental flows to 50 per cent so absolutely nothing goes over Penrith. We had a fantastic resource right there in Penrith, which was used for the bridge-to-bridge swim, which is now moving to the Sydney International Regatta Centre next year because most of the swimming clubs refuse to use it anymore because their swimmers get caught in the weed. We have had the Nepean triathlon for 26 years, mainly on the river. Again, it has been moved to the regatta centre. We have even seen all of the rowing events go out to the Olympic centre. The head coach of the Nepean club is reported in the Penrith Star as saying that it could affect the chances of the club getting a medal in the future. They are getting broken equipment and they are getting strained muscles from athletes getting caught in the weed and really upsetting themselves. In fact, one of their learners fell in and had to be rescued from one of the coaching dinghies.

The river is in a real mess. A lot of those tourism dollars that are generated from its recreational uses have gone, and the state government is basically offering to pump deeper in the Warragamba, have a desalination plant—presumably run by about three coal powered electricity stations—or pump from the Shoalhaven. Why they do not just dam the Shoalhaven, I do not know. It is just unbelievable. At the moment they are actually drilling in Leonay. They are now drilling for aquifers in my suburbs. They have no idea how long these aquifers take to refill but say, ‘Let’s go drilling willy-nilly for these aquifers now, and that will solve the water crisis.’

As a government that shows very scant regard for people who are pro-life or have religious leanings, their sole plan for water for Sydney is to pray for rain. I do not know that they are going to have much success in that. One of the quick-fix options they offered my electorate was that they were going to spend about $100,000 over five weeks on a weed harvester. That is $20,000 a week that they were going to spend on a weed harvester. If they had bought a second-hand harvester, which is available for about $250,000, they would have been able to operate their own harvester for 12 weeks to pay it off. You would have a permanent harvester and, over a year, you could keep the harvesting going and make a real start on fixing the problem.

Our state government are not renowned for their budgetary expertise, and they seem to get in a hole wherever they go. They certainly have not closed many STPs since I was elected in 1996. There were 36 STPs draining to the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment system before it exited at Broken Bay. Today there are about 30. In fact, the residents of Hawkesbury have been drinking and using effluent. Eighty per cent of what is pumped into the Hawkesbury River is effluent, and they have been recycling that water to a drinkable state for the city of Hawkesbury.

There is a lot more that the state government could do, rather than letting an enormous amount of rainwater flow out to sea and putting more chemicals and stormwater run-off into the river. They can certainly improve what goes back into the river. It is already caught. We in the federal government did some magnificent reports on sustainable cities, and those outcomes need to be put in place by state governments.

They have really made a big impact on a lot of the financial aspects of the river, as mentioned by the member for Macquarie. We have seen a lot of tourism events close down; we had a lot of houseboats; we have seen a lot of propellers being choked by weed; we have seen a lot of events move off the river system. Those events do not come back. It will be an enormous investment by the state government in tourism to get that type of funding back into the areas along the Hawkesbury. (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is about blame shifting but it is confused as well. I note that the member for Lindsay referred to the committee report on sustainable cities. We in this House are looking forward to the government and Mr Howard endorsing the recommendations of that committee and putting them in place immediately. I call on him again, given that one of his backbenchers has raised it in the House, to do that as a matter of course.

It is true that the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment is one of the most varied in the country. It supports a population of over one million people and generates over $1 billion every year in agriculture. It supports a commercial fishing industry, it supplies 80 per cent of Sydney’s sand and gravel for construction purposes and it provides 23 per cent of New South Wales’ electricity, so it is true that we ought to treat issues surrounding the Hawkesbury-Nepean and its health with some seriousness, but it is incorrect for the member for Macquarie to state that the New South Wales government has ignored its responsibility to ensure the long-term health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. From the late 1990s, when the Healthy Rivers Commission completed its investigation into the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, the New South Wales government has been active in both securing Sydney’s water supply and improving the health of the river.

The Hawkesbury-Nepean River Management Forum was established in July 2001, supported by an independent expert panel. Its brief was to make recommendations on environmental flows for the Hawkesbury-Nepean, and its recommendations were adopted by the New South Wales government and incorporated into the metropolitan water plan announced in 2004. The upgraded plan, the 2006 metropolitan water plan, established a water sharing plan for the greater metropolitan region, and set out the conditions for the sharing of water between environmental needs and commercial uses. Environmental flow rules will also be stipulated in the Sydney Catchment Authority’s water licence—an approach which all managers of New South Wales rivers now have to adopt. The Water Management Act, which codifies the responsibilities of water managers, puts water for the environment above all other water uses.

It is the case that the pressures on catchments like the Hawkesbury-Nepean are enormous. The Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Foundation, a community organisation which is designed to promote ecologically sustainable development within the river system, has argued against political bickering over the Hawkesbury-Nepean. The foundation is committed to political bipartisanship, recognising that the challenge of healing the river and its catchment requires a vision and collective concerted effort beyond the time frame of day-to-day partisan politics, which is all that this motion is about.

The federal government’s own report card for the Hawkesbury-Nepean from Natural Resource Management, administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of the Environment and Heritage, in 2004 highlighted a number of joint investments between the state and federal governments, including river health, sustainable agriculture, biodiversity and community partnerships. That is what we need to do to fix the river system—not jump up in the House and start blaming the New South Wales government. The webpage puts it very succinctly:

The Hawkesbury-Nepean region’s future lies with the community’s inspiration to build a healthy environment. The Australian and New South Wales Governments, Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority and the many community groups supported under the governments’ programs are all working to ensure protection and sustainable development of the region’s land, vegetation and water resources.

So it is a bit rich for the member for Macquarie and the member for Lindsay to blame solely the New South Wales government when bureaucrats from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of the Environment and Heritage have shown that there are a number of joint initiatives underway. Most importantly, it is a bit rich for the member for Macquarie to come in here and not mention climate change. Seventy per cent of New South Wales will be in drought if we get a one-degree increase as a consequence of climate change. Climate change is the gorilla in the room for this government. It is the very issue that the government will not address—and, because it will not address it, it comes in here and moves a motion of this kind which simply blames the New South Wales government.

We are experiencing significant drought in New South Wales, and it is a consequence of the failure of the Howard government to take climate change seriously. Today the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, talking about former Vice-President of the United States Mr Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, said that what is contained in this documentary is an entertainment. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is not entertaining to the people of New South Wales to have blame-shifting motions moved in this House when the most important and significant action that the Howard government could take in relation to dealing with the state of our rivers, both in New South Wales and right around the country, is to address climate change. The National Water Initiative is at a standstill, and this motion is misdirected, because if you cannot deal with climate change then you are not going to be able to do anything about the rivers of New South Wales. (Time expired)

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the call by the member for Macquarie for the New South Wales government to address the issues regarding the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. The Hawkesbury-Nepean region covers 22,000 square kilometres and supports five million people in over 20 local government areas, including the electorate of Greenway. There are a number of creeks in my electorate that run from the Hawkesbury, and they are in serious disrepair as a result of the challenges facing this river.

The greater west region, which is the third-largest economy in Australia behind that of the Sydney CBD and south-west Queensland, is acknowledged as Sydney’s new economic powerhouse and comes within the catchment area. Significant economic activity depends on the catchment. Agriculture in the region has an annual farm gate value of well over $1 billion and eggs, poultry, fresh vegetables, flowers and fruit are supplied to Sydney markets. Additionally, the area supports oyster and prawn farming, extensive horse breeding and a turf industry. This has a flow-on effect for local businesses in the area that supply and service those major industries. The Hawkesbury-Nepean is also a major tourism drawcard. Such a resource is of vital significance to the economy, the population and the natural environment. The challenge is to maintain the health and sustainability of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river, and there are many challenges.

The best example of how the New South Wales government has let down the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment area is for me to talk about the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Action Plan 2006-15. I heard the member for Kingsford Smith talk about plan, plan, plan, plan. I did not hear him talk about action. I did not hear him talk about the sign-off of the draft plan. The draft plan, written in December 2005, is yet to be signed off. I refer to some of the challenges raised within that document. These are challenges not at grassroots level but at the management, funding and resource issues level—issues that are firmly in the hands of the New South Wales government.

The Hawkesbury-Nepean is a catchment of national significance. It supplies 97 per cent of the drinking water for metropolitan Sydney. This water supports the generation of 70 per cent of the state’s income. The federal government is committed to water management, and it is taking leadership on the issue. It remains the key national conservation challenge of our age. In 2003-04, the federal government approved close to $4.3 million and committed a further $12.9 million to the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority for the years 2004-07. I was present at that launch. I heard the member for Lindsay note that that involved between $1 million and $2 million—a lot less than $12.9 million. My challenge to the New South Wales government is to at least match what the federal government contributes. The New South Wales government needs to take more responsibility for water, follow the lead of the federal government and match, dollar for dollar, our contribution.

One of the strategies listed in the catchment action plan is to encourage more participation by community groups and to partner with local councils. As recently as August this year, the partnerships between the catchment management authority and Blacktown council and the catchment management authority and Hawkesbury councils were completed. On page 90 of the action plan, however, there is the warning that ‘the number of services local government is expected to deliver is increasing faster than its ability to fund’ and that ‘natural resource management is not always a top priority’.

The New South Wales government should shoulder the responsibility for management and funding of the issues and not devolve that responsibility to local government, who already complain of stretched resources. If the desired outcome is a healthy river system and the environmental, economic and social benefits that that brings then hiving off such responsibility to local communities, councils and volunteers is not in the best interests of the community, the river or the people it services. It is a sad indictment that time is being spent addressing management issues rather than getting on with the job of actually doing the work.

The federal government has invested significant funds to assist with weed eradication over a four-year period and has contributed to the control of a major outbreak of salvinia in 2004. The action plan is yet to be signed off by the New South Wales state government. Many of the people moving to the Hawkesbury-Nepean region want a rural lifestyle, and the number of small acreage blocks and hobby farms has increased. This puts enormous pressure on water resources.

The New South Wales government has delayed completion of its formal water planning for the water systems in the Sydney region, including the Hawkesbury-Nepean, yet this formal water planning requirement is one of the commitments under the National Water Initiative to which New South Wales is a signatory. There is great concern that the final plan will be inadequate to address Sydney’s growing water demand. I call on the New South Wales state government to not just plan but act. (Time expired)

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There must be a New South Wales state election looming—I believe it is going to be in March of next year. The Premier, Morris Iemma, will have a great victory, just like the Premier of Queensland did last weekend.

The first two parts of this motion are worth noting. The Hawkesbury-Nepean river system is of vital importance to the population of Sydney and the New South Wales economy and, like all river systems in developed countries, it is subject to degradation. The rest of the motion moved by the member for Macquarie and supported by the members for Lindsay and Greenway is simply politically motivated fiction which ignores the long history of the development of the region and the importance of the river system in providing the great proportion of the water supply of not only Sydney but Wollongong, the Illawarra, the Southern Highlands, the Blue Mountains and the Central Coast.

More than 60 per cent of the population of New South Wales, over four million people, rely on the Hawkesbury-Nepean for their water supply. Sydney has drawn its water from the Nepean for more than 100 years and the management strategy for those catchments has been to limit urban development and agriculture in the headwaters of those catchments. That strategy of maintaining pristine water catchments meant that it was not until a decade ago that Sydney’s drinking water needed secondary treatment. By far the greater part of the catchments in the upper Nepean and Warragamba rivers are protected by water catchment reserves and national parks. The same can be said for the Grose River and streams flowing into the lower Hawkesbury. Where there is urban and rural development there are restrictions on land use, and waste water treatment is in place. As the primary source of water for 60 per cent of the New South Wales population, the Hawkesbury-Nepean system must be managed to ensure a safe and adequate supply of water.

The member for Macquarie is well aware, although we have not had any reminders lately, that flooding has brought tragedy and devastation to the river system since the times of early settlement, and flood mitigation must always be a principal concern for planners considering the Hawkesbury-Nepean.

There are, of course, other major concerns. Development in Western Sydney along the eastern catchment is progressing and will place greater strain on the river system. For a number of years we have witnessed the effects of this stress. Weed growth and algal blooms have made parts of the system a health risk. But the member for Macquarie fails to acknowledge the measures being taken in newer developments in the north-west sector and in the South Creek region. The recycling of greywater in those places is reducing demand for drinking water from the system, and the better management of stormwater will both reduce the risk of flooding and provide for longer term flows in the creeks that feed into the lower reaches of the system. That, of course, comes at a cost to new home buyers in those areas but it is a cost that must be met if we are to improve the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean. There will also be a cost to all water users.

In bringing this motion to the House, the member for Macquarie seems to think that the management of this river system began in the last 10 years under a Labor state government. He must have come down in the last shower. If he checks his history, he will see that it has been part of our state’s water management strategy for more than 100 years. Decisions taken many years ago have long-term impacts. Some of those have been good for the river, like the abandonment of the Grose River dam.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.