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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3872 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

We all know the impact of land based taxes on government revenues, and we are relatively aware that the health of that economy, and the level of government revenue, will then have an impact upon overall community health-that is, what the government, no matter what colour it is, can do within the economy to assist those who need government assistance and to provide the fundamental services that most citizens expect and are entitled to.

It is a bigger question than simply learning to live with the amount of water that we have at the moment. If that were the only change made, then Canberra as an economy would be on the way to a disastrous position where it would not be able to adequately provide the services that its citizens deserve. It is a bit of a Hobson's choice, but we do need to look at where we are going.

We may also remember-at this point in time, at least-that of the water we take into the town, we put 50 per cent of it back, and a very high quality effluent is returned to the river systems. It is only half as bad as it might appear, but at this stage I cannot see Canberra as anything other than requiring an additional water supply. When I say Canberra, I mean Canberra and the near region. More and more, the border between the ACT and its surrounding region is becoming just a line on paper. More and more, our fortunes are becoming integrated. Certainly, the economy of Canberra is interwoven inexorably with the fortunes of the near region.

Some of the upgrades that might exist have been canvassed. I can advise that Actew has commissioned a study by the CSIRO to look at our long-term prospects and to get at least the scientists' view as to whether our environment has changed, whether this drought that we are going through now is atypical, whether we will normalise altogether or whether some change is expected in the long term. They will all be wild guesses, but they will be scientific guesses and they will be the best information upon which we can plan.

In terms of the reverse privatisation of water supply, if we usurp the pricing control back to government, it will be reasonable to continue to enjoy the economies of scale, at least, of Actew operating our gas and electricity supplies and our water and sewerage services, rather than trying to set up parallel organisations that, 90 per cent of the time, will be doing pretty much the same thing with the same collection of customers.

To address the restrictions themselves, I think there can be debate about whether they are absolutely perfect. As far as we are concerned, they have to be understandable and easily communicated. They have to be practicable and enforceable. They are pretty damn obvious and relatively crude.

We cannot effectively mandate restrictions within the house-"Right, stage 4 restrictions: three-minute showers."How the hell do you implement that? "The four litres a day that you are drinking will be cut to three litres a day-and take on a bit of orange juice as well."I do not think we can do that. I am not going to say that the restrictions that are in place now are perfect; what I will do is come back to this place and let you know how effective they are.

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