Page 1624 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
goes down, their amount of water will go down commensurate with the percentage. I think, again, that is quite fair.
I note that the government has sought to address the concerns raised by the legal affairs committee about the bill’s compliance or otherwise with the Human Rights Act 2004. The committee was particularly critical of the lack of detail provided in the explanatory statement in relation to a number of aspects. I would strongly encourage the government to ensure adequate explanations are provided in future so as perhaps to obviate the need for the committee to spend so much time examining these issues. That is not just with this bill; it has been so with a number of bills in recent times. I have been off the committee for nearly a year, but even then we would regularly complain about a lack of detail creeping into these explanatory statements. Whilst some are very good, others are very skimpy. This bill is no different from a number of other bills in the skimping of some of those proposals.
The bill does draw together and clarify a number of matters. Most of these measures are logical and efficient and in some instances somewhat innovative. I am pleased to see, for example, sporting groups having the ability to tap into their stormwater drains. I single out “royal” Gloucester, which is now called Capital golf course. I used to play there as a kid. Apparently they do so already. They have got dams and water goes into their dams. They will pay a charge for a licence but because the water is stormwater they will not have to pay abstraction charges. They will just have to monitor how much they take, which is sensible, and they can then use it on the golf course. I would hope that the Royal Canberra Golf Club, which has had some particular difficulties in terms of using water, will be able in a similar vein to tap into the two stormwater drains that go through it and utilise that facility just like the Capital golf course can. I would hope, too, that a number of sporting groups will be able, with assistance from the government, Actew and various other bodies, to tap into stormwater for use on their ovals.
As we approach probably the inevitable level 4 restrictions, I think it would be a great tragedy not to use every innovative means we can to ensure that we keep alive as much of our playing fields as possible. I think we need to look, too, at ways in which people such as car wash operators, who use, I think, four 10-thousandths of one per cent of our annual usage of water, will be able to continue to operate, as indeed other businesses that use water. We do need to ensure that these groups have the ability to tap into schemes such as the ones mentioned here and other schemes that can be developed to continue during this very scary part of our history in the ACT.
God willing, this drought will break. As I said in another debate, if it does not we will have deep problems. Until such time as it breaks—hopefully, it will; the forecasts seem to indicate that that probably will happen—we need to harness whatever resources we have at present. This bill does give us the opportunity to do so in some instances, but I would urge the government and its instrumentalities to adopt innovative means to ensure that some of the essential businesses and some of the essential community assets, such as sporting grounds, can continue to operate using non-potable water preferably but if need be, perhaps with some dispensations, potable water. There are considerable benefits here, I think, in relation to stormwater particularly and I am pleased to see some movements there already.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .