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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4259 ..

There are other issues that I think are worthwhile noting in this debate. Mrs Dunne suggested in the in-principle stage that the government has done very little—in fact, she suggested it has done nothing—to address the issue of controlling domestic water use inside dwellings. The government has—perhaps not to the knowledge of members—undertaken a most significant step, which is to limit the pressure delivered through the domestic pipes to new residential dwellings.

Across Canberra the average pressure is about 800 kilopascals. This means that a lot more water is forced through the domestic pipes and through the relevant taps and domestic appliances. The government has acted to ensure that, for all new residential dwellings as of 1 May this year, the pressure is limited to 550 kilopascals, or nearly half the amount of water pressure delivered to residential dwellings.

We are the first state or territory to do that, and other states and territories are following suit. It is a significant demonstration of the government’s commitment to reduce the wasteful use of water. The most significant step in doing that is reducing the overall water supply pressure to residential dwellings, where it is simply excessive and unnecessary. I refute Mrs Dunne’s assertions and make the point that the government has taken a significant but unheralded step, with a quite quiet announcement, towards reducing the level of water pressure that is supplied to new residential dwellings.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 4A.

MRS CROSS (12.08 am): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name on the white paper to insert a new clause 4A [see schedule 6 at page 4287]. The purpose of the insert is quite straightforward. The minister has said that the government is committed to the water efficiency issue. It is not a prohibitive cost to supply free of charge this necessary secondary device to households in the ACT that wish to install such a device. I commend this amendment to members.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (12.08 am): I am a bit disturbed at this amendment coming so late, particularly when it involves an unquantified cost to the territory. I do not think any member can tell the Assembly this evening—and I certainly cannot do so as the responsible minister—what the potential cost of this would be. It is true that these items on their own are relatively cheap—in fact, they are extremely cheap—but Mrs Cross’s amendment seems to suggest that the government would need to provide such a device free of charge in perpetuity to anyone who requested it. There is no time limit—it would simply legislate that the government shall provide these devices free of charge for as long as this clause remains in the act. I am concerned that this amendment has come so late in the day without those issues being thought about.

Regardless of issues around timeframes, I do not believe that, as a matter of principle, it is appropriate for the territory to bear this cost. First of all, as indicated, it is a relatively minor cost to householders so it could hardly be suggested that there was some sort of

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