Page 3383 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That was the particular point I wanted to make this afternoon. I think it is one that needs to be noted; it needs consideration. I urge that in future the impact on accommodation houses in this Territory be weighed up. For just a small property you are talking about several hundred dollars. For the larger properties, of 150 or 160 rooms, they are going to be up for a quite significant amount of money. There is no doubt that they cannot always pass that on to the consumer, because room rates in the ACT are very much governed by room rates around the ACT. We all know that there has been a significant downturn in visitor numbers. Fewer visitors are visiting the ACT. It is just one additional impost on that industry. I would hope that in future better consideration is given to the impact on business.
MR JENSEN (4.41): Mr Speaker, as I understand it, we are speaking in the in-principle stage. Is that correct?
MR SPEAKER: That is right.
MR JENSEN: Mr Speaker, I will make some general points in the in-principle stage and I foreshadow that I propose to move an amendment which is currently being adjusted. There is an amendment in my name circulating. It is in the process of being slightly amended and will be moved in the detail stage.
I want to make some points in relation to the general issue of water usage in the ACT. I think it is very important to remember that the ACT is currently identified as being the highest average daily and average yearly domestic user of water of any capital city in Australia. I am quoting from a Weekend Australian report of 14 September 1991, from page 8, which some members may have seen on the weekend. Reading from the top, in alphabetical order, Adelaide has a figure of 301, Brisbane has a figure of 450, Canberra of 480, Melbourne comes in with 270, Newcastle 220, Perth 330, and Sydney 300.
Melbourne, Newcastle and Sydney are, in fact, industrial cities; whereas the ACT is not, by any stretch of the imagination. The situation is that the national capital quite clearly is using a lot more water than many of the other capital cities. As I notice my colleague Mr Moore has acknowledged, there is a requirement to review that issue. It is very interesting that here we have a continuation of the current regime, the old regime, of charging for water usage around Australia. Basically, you charge a flat fee, with a very limited figure for excess water.
It is interesting to note that in 1985 Newcastle was looking down the barrel of having to spend $70m-odd to construct a new dam to provide the necessary water supply for that area. However, they have now restructured their charging system and that has effectively meant that the dam has still not been built. Newcastle, by virtue of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .