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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4255 ..

outcome-based measures and deal in a much simpler way with the job of defining which taps are to be affected.

The government’s approach, based on the Victorian government’s work, is to specify which taps the requirements are to apply to. Specifically, this is for domestic taps over kitchen and laundry sinks or over any other basin in the building. The regulations do not apply to areas used mainly for business. As I understand the government’s intention, this is to allow work to be done to identify any requirements of specific businesses for higher-flow taps, perhaps for decontamination or industrial applications.

Reducing water use in the commercial sector is an essential part of the work of reducing demand, so I would encourage this work to be done swiftly—and the appropriate regulations to be put in place. Speed is important, as we are in an ongoing drought and there is just not the water in our region to imagine we can solve our problems by capturing more water in any dam. Buildings where the usual pressure of water supply is less than 50 kilopascals are also exempt from the tap requirements.

I note that, in common with Mrs Dunne’s intent—although I think not, in the end, with the bill—the government’s requirements would be triggered by domestic water supply plumbing work involving the relevant taps or showerheads. Mrs Dunne’s bill also includes a ban on the use of insinkerators—garbage disposal units installed in the sink—which rely on large amounts of water to wash away organic waste, which can be a valuable resource, which is ground up by the unit. The government amendments retain this. Of course, to make use of the resource of organic waste, we still desperately need a collection system for people who, either because of where they live or because of their lifestyle, do not use their organic waste in composting or in worm farms.

I do not have much more to say on this bill but, again, I appreciate the work Mrs Dunne has done to bring this issue forward, and her consistent pushing of the need to reduce water use. I also appreciate the government’s response in finding a way to improve the regulations. It is difficult without a government department to do the level of investigation that is sometimes required, so it is necessary to work together. That this has been done without great public acrimony getting in the way is very pleasing, and something I think the community would expect.

MRS DUNNE (11.51), in reply: I thank members of the Assembly for their support for this important but small step on the path to improving the ACT’s water efficiency. Ms Dundas really hit the nail on the head when she said that—especially as we are moving again moving into stage 3 water restrictions—we spend our time looking at our outdoor domestic water consumption as essentially the only thing that can be controlled. It is obvious; it is visual and in that sense it is easy to police but, depending on which set of figures you read, about 50 per cent of all our domestic water is consumed indoors, and the current water restriction regime has no impact on that water usage. There is really no attempt by the government to encourage substantial water reduction inside the house. While we have come to a process tonight which will result in the fairly harmonious passage of this bill, it has not all been a bed of roses up until now. This has been a very stop-start process.

The point I have made from the outset is that amending the plumbing regulations, as we are doing tonight, is inordinately and unnecessarily cumbersome when you are doing it

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