Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 767 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

involved in the trial of those six houses to which Ms Tucker refers. It is not true to say that ACTEW Corporation has come to the view that such a proposal has no potential for further development. It has not in fact, as I understand it, proceeded with any immediate plans to develop such a concept in the ACT because, needless to say, if it were to be developed in the ACT, it could result in ACTEW losing customers.

This is a proposal to take people off-line from ACTEW. Why would they wish to develop such a concept on any great scale in the ACT? Mr Speaker, the fact is, however, that what has been done with those six houses demonstrates very clearly that separation can occur and that we are not dependent, for example, with respect to sewerage services, on a major territorial system to take care of disposal from individual households across the whole Territory. In other words, it is possible for people to effectively recycle such products or such waste within their own land.

Mr Speaker, the point that ACTEW is making is that this sort of potential poses a risk at the end of the day to the possibility of ACTEW retaining its present customer base for sewerage services. I have answered this question before in one respect. As I said yesterday, if you had said to somebody 30 years ago , "Look you do not need to be hooked up to the electricity supply to get your power. One day there will be little bits of tin that you can put on your roof and you can get your own power from those", then people would have laughed at that suggestion.

Mr Moore: Thirty years ago?

MR HUMPHRIES: Thirty years ago they would have laughed at that suggestion. But, Mr Speaker, the fact is that this is no longer a crazy idea. And the idea of recycling of sewerage waste is also not a crazy idea. I see Ms Tucker thinks it is a crazy idea and I am surprised to hear that from an avowed environmentalist. That being the case, it is reasonable to assume that such development could occur, and it is reasonable to assume that the customer base that ACTEW has for that kind of service is not totally secure and, as technology changes, may be at some risk from the changes in technology which that kind of development represents.

MR SPEAKER: Supplementary?

MS TUCKER: I was not amazed at the fact that there is new technology coming. I was amazed that the Minister seemed to be saying it was inconsistent to save energy and be ACTEW at the same time, considering that ACTEW does have environmental objectives in its legislation. Given the fact that ACTEW, Minister, has already been developing and implementing alternative sewerage treatment systems, such as Cranos and grey water recycling - which, by the way, still need pipes - while under public ownership, why do you believe that this will not continue to occur if ACTEW's sewerage business stays in public control? And are you seriously saying it is inconsistent for ACTEW to take on energy conservation within its charter? This is something that is in its legislation.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .