Page 845 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
When we look at water and at sustainability, the most important factor is to recognise that the water we use in the ACT is a renewable resource. As such, it ought not to be too difficult to plan for sustainability. The basic concept of water as a renewable resource should give us hope for use in a balanced and effective way so that we can retain an appropriate urban environment as well as retaining an appropriate rural and bush environment.
There are places where water resources are not sustainable. I lived for three years, for example, on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, where the reticulated water supply comes from the Polda Basin. It is a huge artesian water supply that is tapped and pumped all over the Eyre Peninsula and provides what I would describe as second-rate water in quality but water that is effective for gardens, toilets, washing cars and so forth. The vast majority of that population considered that water not to be potable; hence rainwater tanks were invariably universal - the same rainwater tanks that so many water planners find undesirable for some reason. Yet I believe that it is an issue that we need to look at in the ACT.
I remember that in 1982 in Cleve, where we lived, we had one day of rain. It was a quite heavy fall of rain that day and to some extent it replenished our very limited rainwater supplies. On many occasions I read and hear about people and their hedonistic use of water. I certainly know the difference between having a bath with an inch-and-a-half of water and having a bath that is full to the top, having lived on the Eyre Peninsula with one day of rain in that year. I know the difference between standing in a shower under a trickle or a spray compared to lingering under a shower with a fast, hot supply of water. Certainly, I am aware of those differences, and I often wonder who is jumping on the conservation band wagon and what it is really about. Those issues are the ones raised earlier by Mr Connolly. What is conservation really about? It is about sustainability, and sustainability is about keeping things in balance. It is the way we use water that will allow us to continue with the urban environment of the city we know, provided we can ensure that it is sustainable.
There were some suggestions about maybe three flushes, maybe two flushes, maybe if we have half-flush toilets we can get six flushes. The point is that we have to make sure that there is a sustainable water supply and that that sustainable water supply allows people, on occasions, to be hedonistic. There is nothing wrong with hedonism; it is wonderful. Take it from me, it is fantastic. In fact, I have been thinking about starting a hedonists society. We have to be very careful to avoid the situation where conservation seems to become a case of using less and less and living a lifestyle that is more and more spartan. It does not necessarily mean that at all. I thought it was appropriate, in using my right of reply, to raise that small issue with Mr Connolly. I make the final point, Madam Speaker, that we have the opportunity to reject a GST-style tax and, by supporting the amendment I have moved, to ensure that there is no taxation by stealth. It is a great irony, listening to today's debate, that we have heard the Liberals arguing very strongly against what I perceive as a GST-style tax and Labor, on the other hand, arguing very strongly for it. But that is politics.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Moore, I indulged your need to give a reply, but I would like to draw members' attention to standing order 48, which says:
A reply shall be allowed to a Member who has moved a substantive motion or that a bill be agreed to in principle, and the reply shall be confined to matters raised during the debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .