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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4261 ..

The calculations that I have seen in relation to not only water savings but also reduced greenhouse gases indicate that there would be substantial benefits from the installation of these devices. If the government does not know what these savings are, it stands condemned. We have a government that says it cannot meet its greenhouse targets but this, in fact, is a very simple process for doing so. This was one of the things that first attracted my attention as a mechanism for addressing a whole range of issues in relation to water efficiency.

There is another spin-off. If anyone cares to read any of the data they will see that the installation of secondary flow-limiting devices leads to substantial measurable reductions in energy use and therefore greenhouse emissions. So you get a lot of bang for a very little buck. We talk about being an environmentally responsible territory and leading by example, and here is a sterling example of how you could give leadership.

I have said in the Assembly on a number of occasion—and I do not have the figures to hand—that there have been substantial reductions in electricity consumption in some areas. The ACT government itself has experienced those reductions. In answer to questions on notice, DUS indicated that they have had a considerable reduction in water use and electricity use. There are three reasons for the reduction in electricity. If you use less water, you have to pump less water from the treatment works; you use less electricity to run the water through the treatment works; and when it gets to your house you use less energy because you are using less hot water. All of those things, in addition to water savings, contribute to energy reductions and greenhouse reductions.

Although Mrs Cross has brought this matter on at the last minute, if this were a government that really knew what it was doing about water consumption it would know what the answers are. I know what the answers are. I cannot quantify the cost per household because we do not know how many people will take it up. But we can quantify what the reductions are every time you put one of these devices into a tap, and if the government does not know that, it stands condemned. I commend Mrs Cross’s amendment.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (12.18 am): Mr Speaker, I think Mrs Dunne misrepresents my argument. My argument is that the government could not anticipate the cost of supplying these devices to what was an unknown quantum. I did not for a moment suggest that the government was unaware of the benefits—financial, environmental and otherwise—of reducing water use by the use of such devices. So I think Mrs Dunne misrepresents my argument quite grossly.

Nevertheless, I think my argument is still relevant, and that is that what we have on the table tonight is an amendment which, if passed, would put in place an obligation indefinitely on the territory to supply free of charge these devices to anyone who wants one. Members acknowledge that the individual cost of such devices is extremely small and, in fact, you would pay much more to get the plumber to come out and put them in than you would for the actual device itself.

So it is really a nonsensical amendment and one that simply cannot be justified. I have not heard any argument yet tonight from Mrs Cross or anyone else to justify it except

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