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

I would like to continue the remarks that I was making in this chamber earlier about the haphazard way in which the New South Wales Labor government has been chopping and changing its decisions on how to deal with Sydney’s water crisis. It has shelved the plans for the desalination plant and its alternative plan is to undermine the substrate of Penrith and cause all sorts of anxiety to my constituents.

I have no doubt that the government made the right decision to stop the Kurnell desalination plant. As many have already said, this was a mad decision in the first place. Our water situation is getting worse because of the escalating amount of greenhouse gas and the effect that this has on the atmosphere. The state government’s decision to build a desalination plant would have required an entirely new coal-fired power station. Just one power station for that one desalination plant would have pumped more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere—not to mention the concentration of salt in the ocean. And that was simply to solve a water problem that the government had created in the first place.

The desalination plant was a typical slapdash decision by the state Labor government, which has spent a decade failing to plan for the water needs of Sydney but which has continued to build more houses, particularly on the outskirts of Sydney, in my area, and which has given us no infrastructure or any way to have a sustainable built environment. As James Woodford wrote in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, there is a real concern that, if the government presents the suddenly discovered aquifers as a guarantee against drought, we will continue to consume 400 litres per person per day and the limited supply of ground water will see us facing another crisis in a couple of years.

There is also the Perth example. According to Dr Tim Flannery’s book The Weather Makers, the city mined the subterranean water known as the Gnangara mound for a quarter of a century. He said:

For a quarter of a century the city mined this water, but the failing rains meant that it was not recharged. In 2001 Perth received virtually no water, and by 2004 the situation of the Gnangara Mound was critical with the State’s EPA warning that extracting more water would threaten some species with extinction. Today, the western swamp tortoise only survives because water is pumped into its habitat.

However, if there is a limited supply of subterranean water and the drought continues, I do not see how they can continue replenishing the supply.

The state government of New South Wales is completely failing in its duty to manage the state. Only this week I found that it is planning to close the RTA offices in Katoomba and Springwood, which will impact on residents in an already crowded Penrith RTA office. I cannot understand why the government would make a decision to close both offices in the Blue Mountains. It just seems to make decisions on the run. It makes announcements haphazardly without considering the impact on people’s lives, especially people in surrounding suburbs.

I am no environmental expert, but it is well known that the decisions we make will lead to change and this will always have consequences, some unforeseen. What will this new aquifer mean for the people of Penrith if their underground water is taken for drinking water? Has the state investigated the consequences of this decision? What impact will it have on what is happening above ground? What happens when the water runs out? Will the water have to be replaced if we have a wet season, meaning that our dams are not being replenished?

Before the state government sticks its thirsty pumps beneath the Nepean, I want to see what effect it will have on the rest of the environment in my area. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, which inquired into sustainable cities. We found that Sydney is one of the worst recyclers, recycling less than three per cent of its waste water and pumping about 450 billion litres—75 per cent of its annual water usage—into the sea as barely treated sewage.

The bulk of the water is not drunk by us or used as drinking water, potable water. It is actually used in the garden, for washing the car, in business. I never liked the idea of drinking treated water. But I present the example given to our committee that the state of Israel recycles its water 19 times before it is discharged into the ocean. We can certainly be doing better.

I refer to the report that the committee has done and recommend that people look at it in terms of the safety of recycled water—not only to drink, but, if they do not like that, considering the concept of a third pipe to start recycling and using some of that 450 billion litres of water that we capture and discharge every day. The treatment of waste water is a far more efficient option than desalination.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lindsay may have got a few more seconds than she was due, due to nondiligence during the change in chairs.