Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context