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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3117 ..

In comparing the Queanbeyan City Council (QCC) program with the ACT Water Resources Strategy implementation, the following factors need to be considered:

• The issues facing the ACT and Queanbeyan are quite different and have resulted in quite different strategies;

The obvious response to that is: no, the issues are exactly the same. The fundamental issue is that the region has a water crisis. The second dot point is:

• A key issue facing the ACT is the need to secure our water supply into the future—and the primary approach taken has been to seek water efficiencies that reduce demand;

yes, that is no different from Queanbeyan; that is what we have to do—

• Queanbeyan takes its water from ACTEW and accepts the need to increase water efficiencies as does the ACT (Queanbeyan water restrictions reflect those in the ACT);

yes, that is no different—

• Queanbeyan sewage treatment plant is under capacity and it faces the need to augment its water treatment plant in the near future. Cost of augmentation estimated to be $10 million and as an alternative to an upgrade, the QCC adopted the strategy of an aggressive program to replace water inefficient toilets in Queanbeyan. Although a very expensive program, the QCC chose this option to avoid or postpone an even more expensive augmentation of the treatment plant;

The argument there seems to be that Queanbeyan had to do it because it had other cost pressures. An economic argument has been used. It is obviously fatally flawed if that is the way we are going to make decisions about how we reduce water use around the world, in Australia or in the ACT. The fundamental bottom line is that we need water to survive—and that is what we are dealing with. The last dot point is:

• In contrast, the ACT does not have a problem with the capacity of our treatment plant—the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre, which has sufficient capacity for the present and for a considerable period into the future.

Consequently the ACT has adopted a different approach to a toilet replacement strategy. There are real water savings to be made by replacing water inefficient toilets with dual flush toilets, but we do not have the urgency to replace units that Queanbeyan has. A program that extends over a longer period, and requires a financial commitment from the householder, is seen as a more appropriate approach to achieving household water savings within the ACT.

Basically the whole argument in that answer to my question was that we do not have to do it as fast because we do not have other cost pressures. I think that is a pretty disappointing response for the reasons I have put. Mrs Dunne had other concerns with the plan, which were expressed in a motion on the notice paper, but it was later withdrawn. I understood the motion was as follows:

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