Page 2039 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Szuty said that she was uncomfortable with a total user pays system. That seemed to contradict what her colleague Mr Moore said. He was totally comfortable with the user pays system. Ms Szuty then drew a very long bow when she drew an analogy between the new system that ACTEW is proposing and the poll tax that was proposed in the United Kingdom. I did not look into the poll tax very closely at the time, but I note that it perhaps saw the demise of Prime Minister Thatcher, which some people in the UK might have thought was a good thing.
Ms Szuty was also very supportive of community consultation. Over the past 18 months I have been delighted with the way in which ACTEW have consulted on a number of occasions through their community consultation process. I think that is good. I also note that very few municipal councils that I am aware of have gone through that community consultation process. Most do what they want to do, and so be it.
I found one thing Ms Szuty did difficult to comprehend. She put so much emphasis on her advice from an independent expert; but, when asked who that person or organisation was, she would not name them. I disagree with Ms Szuty on one thing. I am aware of the company called Quadrant, because I used them from time to time in a prior life, before coming to this place, and I have used them since being here. In my opinion, the Quadrant group is one of the most professional and one of the most innovative teams of researchers that I have come across. Mr Lamont expressed concern about Ms Szuty's lack of willingness to name the source of her independent advice and drew various analogies. I must admit, Ms Szuty, that it is like the old advertisements for Colgate toothpaste. Someone in a white coat would say, "Independent university tests prove that something or other has more fluoride". Mr Stevenson, settle down. Do not get carried away by my mentioning the word "fluoride".
Mr Lamont also mentioned the rigorous community consultation process that ACTEW went through. I must admit that they did. He mentioned community acceptance. There is no doubt that not everybody in the community is going to accept anything that changes something that has already been happening. Mr Lamont made some gratifying comments about public tenants and expressed a view that perhaps all tenants - and I stress "all" - ought to be paying their water bills. As far as I am concerned, there is little or no incentive to conserve water if you are not paying the bill. If somebody else is paying the bill for you, there is less incentive for you to save water. Perhaps in one sense Mr Moore and Ms Szuty are right. If ACTEW had said, "We agree that there is very little incentive unless you are paying your own water bill", then perhaps all people in this Assembly would have been more inclined to accept what they had to say.
A lot has been said about private versus other landlords. I agree with most of what Mr Lamont says. Yes, it would be good if private landlords were able to bring down rents in accordance with the amount of water used, but then the corollary is that they could put up rents if people used more water than they were supposed to use. That was an argument Mr Lamont used. Mr Lamont also suggested that it is expensive to meter existing blocks of units, but quite intelligently - and I am delighted that he seemed to commit the Government - he said that in refurbishing existing buildings or building new ones the Government would seriously consider individual metering.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .