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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4266 ..

The current range of flow ratings in the Australian standard is from 1A, which is the lowest level of efficiency, to 5A, the highest level of efficiency. The basis for prescribing a maximum flow capacity to nine litres per minute is that it equates to the maximum flow permissible from most 3A-rated outlets and taps under the relevant Australian standard. The 3A rating is just above the mid range of that A-rated scheme and does represent significant water conservation compared with taps that are not water efficient, while allowing a flow rate that is generally suitable for virtually all normal uses of the tap or outlet.

Proposed sub-regulation 16A only applies to certain taps in kitchen and laundry sinks or any other kind of basin, whereas the bill, as tabled, has applications to all kinds of taps within specified criteria. The bill as drafted may have many unintended consequences, such as requiring flow reduction of the main water supply tap inside a block of flats. That tap may serve pipe work that also connects to domestic fire sprinklers. Clearly, it is not in our interests to require flow reduction measures in those circumstances.

So to avoid such undesirable consequences, the tap-related provisions of the proposed sub-regulation 16A (1) only apply to taps for kitchen and laundry sinks or any other kind of basin. They are the main taps responsible for the majority of water wasted by allowing water to directly flow down the drain without always using a plug to retain the water. The bill as tabled requires bath taps, for example, to be flow restricted, which does not contribute to water conservation as a bath is normally filled with a fixed amount of water regardless of the rate of filling.

Another unintended consequence of the bill as drafted is that because it mandates the installation of taps with a secondary flow reducer, that will prohibit the installation of taps that are inherently water efficient and that have not had a secondary flow reducer added. For many such taps, no such secondary reducer is available.

This is the case, Mr Speaker, for many lever handle-style taps. They can be factory set to achieve any flow rate, including the highest level of water efficiency rating, 5A. But for most, there are no secondary flow reduction devices available. That is because they do not use a traditional tap washer as their valve mechanism. So the bill, as tabled, would have prohibited the use of such lever-style taps. The government’s amendments overcome that unintended consequence by indirectly allowing a tap of any rating to be installed, provided it is equal to or more efficient than the nine litres per minute maximum flow limit for most 3A-rated taps or outlets.

Mr Speaker, amendment No 5 makes a consequential change to a cross-reference in the bill to cater for the other government amendments. The cross-reference is in relation to the Australian and New Zealand standard ASNZS 6400 water efficient products rating and labelling.

MRS DUNNE (12.38 am): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be supporting these amendments, but I sound one note of warning and seek a commitment from the minister. The problem with setting a standard which relies upon water flow is that you will face a whole range of different problems with compliance than would arise from my bill as it stands. You will have a problem with enforcement.

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