Page 3377 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What I do not accept is the notion that a decision that affects so many people in Canberra, and affects them so significantly, not only in terms of water but also in terms of what it is going to cost them, should be made by the Electricity and Water Authority and be disallowed simply by a Minister without any reference at all to the Assembly. The decision should be made by the Assembly and the decision should not be one which the Assembly simply has the right to disallow.
It is of such significant impact to the people of Canberra whenever the basic water allowance is changed that this Assembly should debate the issue - and it should not have to debate it on the back foot. It should be the responsibility of the Minister to bring forward, as a change to legislation, the basic water allowance. That decision should follow the normal process of going through Cabinet - the initiative having come from the Electricity and Water Authority - and then coming to the floor of this house. That having been done, the Assembly as a whole can determine whether we are going to change the water allowance.
It may well be that there are very good environmental reasons in two or three years' time to drop the basic water allowance again. It will not be good enough to do it just as a fundraising device. However, if the Minister or the government of the time considers that that is the most important reason and they can argue and convince the Assembly that that is the appropriate way to go, then that is also taken into account by the amendments that I have circulated. It is a movement of responsibility.
I accept what this Government is trying to achieve in terms of water conservation in this particular instance and in terms of the financial disincentive for people to use water to excess. The conservation consequences, of course, have to do with the possible building of yet another dam for the ACT. If we can avoid that, or even if we can delay that, it is our responsibility to do so.
Because of the way the three Bills are drafted, my proposed amendment conveniently brings into line a basic water allowance and identifies it as 350 kilolitres of water. The other Bills refer back to a basic water allowance, so any further amendment will not require the presentation of three Bills. It will require only the presentation of the one Bill, just as I am amending just the one Bill. It will require an amendment similar to the one that I am proposing.
I would like to thank the Parliamentary Counsel for drafting this for me on very short notice - in less than 24 hours - taking exactly what I asked and turning it into an appropriate amendment. Once again this reflects the contribution the Parliamentary Counsel makes to this Assembly. I know that all of us appreciate that effort. It is important that we say that on many occasions because of the many times that we have that support.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .