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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4267 ..

It is pretty easy to see whether a tap or a showerhead is rated in a particular way, but whether it performs to its rating depends in large part on the water pressure. The minister said that the initiative that was introduced in May to reduce the flow in new domestic work to 550 kilopascals addresses the issue of water pressure to some extent. But if you are at the bottom of a hill you may experience excess water pressure, which means that even though your tap is rated to nine litres a minute, it may exceed that rate.

I need an assurance from the minister that if you have fitted a nine litre per minute tap but it does not perform to that rating, this will not be grounds for compliance action against contractors. I need that commitment and the plumbing industry needs that commitment.

The essential problem with setting a maximum flow rating is that, in a practical application sense, a device may not comply. The fault may be with the pressure in the system, a problem that is brought about by the government, not the contractor or the householder. This is not a particularly grave matter but I do not want to see compliance action taken against people because the device that was fitted according to the regulations does not meet the standard.

The minister is incorrect in saying that the bill, as currently drafted, would not allow people to install a more efficient appliance than a 3A rating. As he says, it must contain at least a 3A rating. So it is fine if the appliance has a 4A rating or a 5A rating. The bill was deliberately drafted that way. But I take the minister’s point—and expert knowledge is available to him—that there are moves afoot to change the rating system. On that basis, the opposition will be supporting the government’s amendment, but on the understanding that this will not result in unreasonable compliance action against tradesmen.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (12.42 am): Mr Speaker, I would like to respond to Mrs Dunne’s comments. I am advised that the maximum flow rating on all these tap devices is tested at a variety of water pressures. So the device is designed to perform within the constraint of the nine litres per minute, based on tests using a variety of water pressures—both high and low water pressures. So I think Mrs Dunne’s concerns are misplaced.

Nevertheless, I can assure her we are not going to have the tap police out there, making sure that everyone’s devices are working below nine litres per minute. Compliance is a hard enough task already without resorting to the tap police.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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