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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2893 ..

On that issue I ask what this government has done. I think that twice in the course of presenting papers, and in answer to questions, members of the government have talked about “Think water, act water”, and they have extolled its virtues. There is much that could be said—and there is probably time for that in another place at another time—about the shortcomings of “Think water, act water”.

I would like to look at a couple of things that have happened this week, for instance, the government’s breathtaking cynicism as shown in the story on page 2 of yesterday’s Canberra Times headed, “Rebate on tanks part of new ACT water strategies.” That is new water strategies: n-e-w. Later the Chief Minister is quoted as saying that the existing scheme, which we all know has been in place since 1997, would be improved to encourage more people to install water tanks. That sounds good, but it is it not a new scheme because it has been there since 1997.

It is true that the government yesterday announced a new rebate for water tanks. For tanks of 2,000 to 4,000 litres you will now get a rebate. The story—and I assume the Chief Minister’s release that went with it—does not say that there are already rebates for the two remaining categories and that, up until yesterday, these rebates were higher than the new rebates. In fact, the announcement yesterday cut the rebates for tanks between 4,000 and 8,999 litres by $100, and the rebate for tanks over 9,000 litres was also cut by $100. In other words this is really a scheme to reduce rebates for most categories, yet it was announced as a new and generous initiative.

At the same time we have the issue of the water strategy with a pilot tune up scheme. Let no-one say that the government is not interested in recycling. We may not be able to recycle putrescible waste but we can recycle ideas. One might ask why we need a pilot for this scheme, given that the Queanbeyan City Council has been doing this for at least three years. With an initiative which would be, at least for us, cheap to copy, what are we doing? We are running a pilot of a cut-down version rather than embracing the issue front on. What we have seen with this government and its pilot water efficiency scheme is that it is putting its toe in the water of water efficiency. We might also say that their efforts are just a drop in the ocean.

Apart from the pilot scheme scope for indoor water savings have been ignored, when this could be done very cost-effectively. I have spoken in this place in the past about the trial of flow-limiting valves run by ACT Housing over the caretaker period, which showed substantial cuts to the amount of water that would be consumed in the houses—in excess of 20 per cent—and also substantial cuts in energy consumption because people were using less hot water. Not only have we not acted on that report; the results of that report have been effectively suppressed for a number of months.

As I have said in this place on a previous occasion, it took the opposition in excess of four months to obtain that report, which was in fact commissioned by the previous government and therefore a report which the Leader of the Opposition, as then minister for housing, was entitled to received. I ask the Assembly the question: why is this government prepared to hide a piece of information which shows a way forward which would substantially address issues of water efficiency and allow us to meet the targets we have set ourselves? This Chief Minister has set targets in “Think water, act water”,

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