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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4260 ..

significant financial impost being put on the householder that would warrant government assistance.

It is worth pointing out to members that, between the period 1 September 2004 and 1 July 2005, as proposed in one of the government amendments, new taps need to meet a maximum flow of nine litres; if they do not meet that, they must have a flow restrictor; or they do not need to have either of those for the period from 1 September this year to 1 September next year. So there is already a clause proposed in the government amendments which provides for taps installed between 1 September this year and 1 September next year not to have flow restrictors if that is not deemed possible. It is essentially an exemptions clause for the period of a year.

As I do not see what purpose this amendment would achieve, I regret that I cannot agree with Mrs Cross on this issue. First of all, as I have indicated to members, the cost is in no way quantified. Secondly, I do not see any argument as to how it is somehow a significant impost on consumers—given, as members have acknowledged, that the cost of an individual restrictor is extremely low. Therefore, I cannot see how that would warrant government financial assistance. Thirdly, as I have indicated, the government’s amendments essentially exempt tapware from having flow restrictors if they are installed between 1 December 2004 and 1 July 2005.

The reason for that again, as I have indicated in the in-principle debate, is that one of the major providers—indeed the dominant provider—of tapware in Australia has said that putting any flow reducer in its taps which is not manufactured by that producer can void the warranty of that tapware. Whilst that might not be a big issue for a little tap in your bathroom, some tapware products cost in the hundreds of dollars for consumers to purchase, and some consumers may not want to void the warranty on what they consider to be a significant investment. Mostly for aesthetic reasons, a lot of taps are very fancy and aesthetically very pleasing and they attract a significant price tag. The government cannot support this amendment and I urge members to oppose it.

MRS DUNNE (12.13 am): Mr Speaker, I have to say that I am a little torn between what I should do with this amendment. I appreciate the sentiment that Mrs Cross expressed in proposing the amendment and, as Mrs Cross can speak again, I would seek some clarification from her.

I understand from the amendment that you are proposing that in addition to meeting all of the requirements that apply to new plumbing work, the government would be required, if asked to do so, to supply to consumers secondary flow-limiting valves for pre-existing plumbing work. I presume that is what Mrs Cross is doing. I think this is a very laudable approach. Whilst not being able to quantify it, we are working on the basis that somebody would have to come forward and say, “I would like my aqua lock value or my other sort of flow limiting valve supplied by the government.” These things retail for less than $3.

The impost would be substantial if you went out and installed aqua lock values in every suitable tap in the 130,000 dwellings in the ACT. The government itself is proposing in its pilot water tune-up program that these values be installed in some taps.

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