Page 3386 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was that there are a number of people out there who are not using their water allowance of 450 kilolitres per annum and she was in fact subsidising and being required to pay for that water that was not being used.
I started my comments today by talking about the need to relook at the charging system. Old habits die hard, and it may be that we have to look at how we actually charge for usage so that we are not in a situation where those that use do not actually pay and where those that do not use pay a base charge and nothing else, and in fact the water usage is uneven. On that basis, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I close my remarks in the in-principle stage and indicate once again that I will be proposing some amendments to the legislation.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.54), in reply: In rising to close the in-principle stage of this debate, I must comment on the diverse range of comments that we have had. This Bill, or this package of Bills, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, basically does two things: It reduces, or moves to reduce, the basic water allowance from 455 kilolitres to 350 kilolitres as a conservation measure, and it makes certain structural or procedural changes to allow that type of reduction to be carried out by the Electricity and Water Authority.
The Bill was something that came up under the former Government. Mr Duby, as Minister, some 12 months or more ago, made the announcement of a reduction of the basic water allowance from 455 to 350 kilolitres. The Labor Party, then in opposition and some 18 months away from an election when opportunistic politics perhaps would have been the logical thing for an opposition to do, did not cavil at that. I think we asked a few questions to get a basis for why you were doing that and accepted that it was a sensible conservation measure.
When the Bill was introduced into the house today we had the most extraordinary range of views. The Liberal Party, all speakers, did not even express a view on the issue of the reduction of the water allowance. They are not interested in the conservation measure. The former Chief Minister, and failed Chief Minister, who could not balance a budget, unlike the excellent Chief Minister and Treasurer presently occupying the chair, spat the dummy about corporatisation. He did not offer a view on the key issue of reduction of the water allowance and argued that, while it was okay to give this type of power to initiate a change to a government owned enterprise structured in one form, it is fundamentally improper to give the same power to a similar government owned enterprise structured in a slightly different way. The Government, I must say, failed to comprehend what the former Chief Minister was talking about in those remarks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .