Mr McADAM - 2001-10-24
Minister, earlier today the Minister for Central Australia gave a ministerial report on options for recycled water use in Alice Springs. Can the minister advise the House of the Power and Water Authority’s approach to this matter?
ANSWER
I thank the member for Barkly for his question. Madam Speaker, as the Minister for Central Australia reported earlier this morning, this is a problem that the previous government failed to address over many years.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry to be repetitious myself but there is no alternative. As the honourable minister has himself admitted, as he reported to this House this morning, he is in fact repeating the advice that he gave to this House this morning in ministerial reports. That is repetition and I would ask you to consider ruling against it.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a repetitious question. This question has not been asked today.
Mr AH KIT: In regards to the interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, there are people watching the television recordings, and also people listening throughout the Northern Territory, who may wish to know the answer to this, especially in the Central Australian region.
This government’s key objective is first and foremost to prevent overflows of treated effluent into what has become the Ilparpa swamp. To address the immediate concern of draining the swamp, the Power and Water Authority has been pumping the water out of the existing swamp into drainage channels that discharge into St Mary’s Creek. This pumping removes the swamp water at the rate of 130 litres per second. This is faster than the rate of inflow of treated effluent, but overall progress has been relatively slow in draining the swamp.
Parallel to the immediate issue of draining the swamp, the Power and Water Authority has been investigating options to totally eliminate any overflows to the Ilparpa clay pan. This is the government’s base line - overflows to Ilpapa swamp will not be permitted under any future management arrangements. As a benchmark, the Power and Water Authority currently considers that the least cost option to address this requirement is through extension to the existing evaporation ponding system. This might possibly be supplemented by irrigation of trees in the Ilparpa area. This is the benchmark against which the pros and cons of alternatives can be considered.
The Power and Water Authority Board will continue to examine alternative schemes such as the use of treated effluent in horticultural or other irrigation purposes. Options are being assessed in conjunction with other agencies, including the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries and the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment. At this stage, the Power and Water Authority Board have made no decision as to its final preferred option. None of the options have been presented to government, nor have they been considered by government at this stage. The options will come forward to government in the near future for consideration. The community can be assured that their views will be listened to in consideration of the options for future management of effluent and recycled water in Alice Springs.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we do go on, I think the Leader of Government Business should be aware that we are getting ministerial reports repeated at Question Time, and we need to clarify that. I think that there is no need to repeat the same topic in both forums. Please remember what I said earlier about getting together and discussing this. I think we need to thrash it out.
ANSWER
I thank the member for Barkly for his question. Madam Speaker, as the Minister for Central Australia reported earlier this morning, this is a problem that the previous government failed to address over many years.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry to be repetitious myself but there is no alternative. As the honourable minister has himself admitted, as he reported to this House this morning, he is in fact repeating the advice that he gave to this House this morning in ministerial reports. That is repetition and I would ask you to consider ruling against it.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a repetitious question. This question has not been asked today.
Mr AH KIT: In regards to the interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, there are people watching the television recordings, and also people listening throughout the Northern Territory, who may wish to know the answer to this, especially in the Central Australian region.
This government’s key objective is first and foremost to prevent overflows of treated effluent into what has become the Ilparpa swamp. To address the immediate concern of draining the swamp, the Power and Water Authority has been pumping the water out of the existing swamp into drainage channels that discharge into St Mary’s Creek. This pumping removes the swamp water at the rate of 130 litres per second. This is faster than the rate of inflow of treated effluent, but overall progress has been relatively slow in draining the swamp.
Parallel to the immediate issue of draining the swamp, the Power and Water Authority has been investigating options to totally eliminate any overflows to the Ilparpa clay pan. This is the government’s base line - overflows to Ilpapa swamp will not be permitted under any future management arrangements. As a benchmark, the Power and Water Authority currently considers that the least cost option to address this requirement is through extension to the existing evaporation ponding system. This might possibly be supplemented by irrigation of trees in the Ilparpa area. This is the benchmark against which the pros and cons of alternatives can be considered.
The Power and Water Authority Board will continue to examine alternative schemes such as the use of treated effluent in horticultural or other irrigation purposes. Options are being assessed in conjunction with other agencies, including the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries and the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment. At this stage, the Power and Water Authority Board have made no decision as to its final preferred option. None of the options have been presented to government, nor have they been considered by government at this stage. The options will come forward to government in the near future for consideration. The community can be assured that their views will be listened to in consideration of the options for future management of effluent and recycled water in Alice Springs.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we do go on, I think the Leader of Government Business should be aware that we are getting ministerial reports repeated at Question Time, and we need to clarify that. I think that there is no need to repeat the same topic in both forums. Please remember what I said earlier about getting together and discussing this. I think we need to thrash it out.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016