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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4254 ..

Starting from “all taps” meant that things like shared taps and pipes in blocks of flats, fire hoses and taps in water supply pipes might be caught. The amendments Mrs Dunne proposed limiting the taps to “domestic” taps would have dealt with the supply issue but not necessarily with shared taps in apartment blocks. This indicated the broader problem that there was a huge task in thinking of all the relevant exceptions, which would result in messy legislation.

The government raised concerns that they did not have enough information about the possible effects of interaction between the materials in the flow reduction valves and the tapware which might, for instance, void warranties. These concerns were not fleshed out by research. Aqualoc on the other hand, who manufacture flow reduction valves, say that their product reduces wear and tear on taps and reduces maintenance requirements. At least there was some uncertainty.

Another issue not dealt with in the bill was the situation for households that already have low water pressure, likely to be principally in rural areas. This was because the requirements focused on the technology rather than on the flow rate. This could have been dealt with fairly easily I think, but it was an issue raised in discussions. The government also raised several drafting points—that taps already incorporate a flow reduction valve, in that, technically speaking, that is the definition of a tap; that the definition of an appliance directly connected to a tap is problematic; and that the task of identifying and adequately defining necessary exceptions to taps is large and would result in messy legislation.

I had feedback from environment groups that their preferred approach was to set flow standards which left it up to individuals to achieve flow reduction. This had the advantage of bringing in the full range of water saving technologies. Incidentally, the Victorian government over the last two years—roughly the same length of time Mrs Dunne’s bill has been around—has done a lot of work to develop a comprehensive set of requirements based on maximum flow outcomes for taps. The government amendments tonight are drawn from the Victorian scheme. The Victorian changes are based on the work of their Department of Sustainability and Environment, presented in their recent white paper—chapter 5 of which is entitled, “Smarter water use in our cities and towns”—and the government reform package titled Our water our future.

This package was launched a couple of days before the scheduled debate of Mrs Dunne’s bill earlier this year and includes many initiatives that appear to be very good. I hope the ACT government will pick up more from the package. For example, there is a fund to trial innovative water reduction technologies. They also propose more finely tuned permanent water restrictions, for example, rather than banning the use of sprinklers. Their operation will be restricted to low evaporation hours, and all automatic watering systems would need to be fitted with either a rain or soil moisture sensor so they do not turn on when it is raining or when the soil is already wet.

Getting back to the bill before us, Mrs Dunne did develop amendments to try to address the concerns raised, including defining the required device as “secondary device”, rather than as a “flow reducing valve” and clarifying that the requirements applied to domestic water would not apply to toilets or continuous hot water systems. As I say, I will be supporting the government amendments, which bring in the preferable approach of

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