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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4251 ..

For example, Dorf-Clark Industries Ltd—Australia’s largest tapware importer and manufacturer, covering more than 60 per cent of the local tapware market—last week made a written submission to the government about Mrs Dunne’s bill, pointing out some of the problems I have mentioned here. It also suggested that a better approach would be to set a maximum flow rate for taps. The suggestions in that industry submission are consistent with the approach I will be adopting in moving amendments to this bill.

The government cannot support the amendment to regulation 16A (1) (a) as proposed by Mrs Dunne. The bill has flaws that so fundamentally compromise the operation of all of the bill’s proposed new sections and regulations that the amendments as advised by the opposition will be of little consequence. Mrs Dunne’s amendment would fix one small aspect of the extent of application of the bill, but the bill needs a total overhaul rather than small fixes here and there. The bill really needs substantial rewriting to best achieve its laudable objectives. The government therefore intends to make significant amendments to the bill that will take account of the matter that Mrs Dunne’s proposed amendment covers, as well as giving the bill the major overhaul it needs.

The government’s water strategy, “Think water, act water” adopted an educative approach to water conservation, preferring to educate rather than regulate. That was partly due to the size of the ACT plumbing market, which was too small to influence tapware makers. However, because other jurisdictions are now moving to regulate tap flows, the industry is responding by making water-efficient taps widely available. It is therefore now practical for the ACT to regulate tap flows. I will deal in more detail with the government amendments in the detail stage of the bill. As members can see from the points I have put forward, there are a range of issues that need to be addressed to make this bill a workable piece of legislation. I urge members to support the government amendments. I indicate that the government agrees in principle with this legislation, subject to some significant amendment.

MS DUNDAS (11.37): The ACT can manage its water better. Not only does this mean better methods of capturing or supplying water, such as the use of water tanks and water recycling, but it also means developing a culture and a community understanding that we need to minimise our water use. One element of doing that is to ensure that, when we install water systems in our homes, we use technology that minimises water wastage. The bill put forward this evening explores one element of household water minimisation by ensuring that taps do not spout excessive amounts of water. The bill also goes on to look at preventing sink waste disposal units.

The majority of water consumption in the territory is domestic, and internal household usage makes up about half of that water consumption. If we can reduce our usage of water for cleaning and washing within the home, we can make a substantial impact on our total water consumption. That is the intention of this bill and the Democrats wholeheartedly endorse that. This appears to be the approach the government has generally emulated in the amendments it is putting forward to this bill. The Democrats are happy to support the government’s amendments, as we see them generally clarifying the intention of the original bill.

The amendments mandate a maximum workload from certain domestic taps, rather than requiring particular technology. We believe this is a sensible approach to take. In

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