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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4253 ..

The driving sentiment behind Mrs Dunne’s bill is incontestably noble. This bill is yet another example of the government’s reliance on the opposition and crossbench for that extra source of initiative in their search for good governance. However, even though I commend Mrs Dunne for her show of initiative and her well-founded sentiment, there remain some issues of effective implementation. As a consequence, I will be supporting the government’s amendments. These amendments make the bill more workable at a practical level, addressing issues that Mrs Dunne’s broad sweeping provisions do not address.

I would like to encourage the government to become more assertive with the matter at hand and make a more meaningful statement by investigating subdivision of the water flow constricting devices and water-efficient taps and showerheads. The water-efficient valves are of minimal cost, and it is my understanding that other jurisdictions have attempted to provide these devices to their residents. I will therefore be moving an amendment that the government supply free of charge to the relevant persons in the community the necessary secondary device referred to in the government’s amendments.

In conclusion, the water supply price in the territory should be addressed on a number of fronts. This regulation will provide one of these fronts in helping to secure a more sustainable water supply for the people of Canberra. I thank Mrs Dunne for bringing this issue to the attention of the Assembly. If the government is genuinely committed to the issue of water, then I suggest that they support the amendment I move to offer these devices free of charge.

MS TUCKER (11.44): The Greens will be supporting this bill and the government amendments to it. The bill is about requiring a level of water efficiency in domestic taps and showers and banning the use of insinkerators. These are valuable steps in meeting the urgent need to reduce our water use. While incentives and education have an important role in changing the wasteful habits we as a community have, which are imbedded in much of our culture, in the end there is a need to set some new standards to make the shift.

Incentives are still important. Also, as these new requirements are triggered by major work, retrofitting can usefully continue to be encouraged in situations where it is not strictly required in these regulations. The message is that it is everyone’s responsibility. It is symbolically quite a nice thing that we are debating this bill last today, on the final private members day for the term. I think this is a good example of how the Assembly should work—that is, members working in collaboration to find the best outcome—although I have no idea what Mrs Cross is just tabling. That is not part of the process I have just alluded to, because no-one knows anything about it.

Mrs Dunne first put forward a version of this bill in 2002. Following some concerns raised then about how it would work, she withdrew it and brought this one back this year. The government raised problems with the practicalities of implementing this bill. In essence, the problems stemmed from the regulations setting the efficiency requirements on the basis of particular appliances to be used in taps—the flow reducers—and because it applied those requirements to all taps, with some exceptions.

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