Page 4790 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One issue that is exercising my mind at the moment—and it is challenging to get to exactly where things are up to—is the detail of the permanent water conservation measures as well as the temporary water restrictions. Temporary water restrictions have been effective in reducing consumption. That is very clear. But now that we have moved back to the baseline we need to check that the permanent measures are still meeting community expectations.
In deciding what permanent water conservation measures should look like, we need to make sure that we fully consult with the community. I think even reflecting on feedback from radio callers this morning there are a wide range of opinions in regard to the benefits or otherwise of lifting restrictions. Some people say that it is madness to ever lift restrictions, whilst others say, “Thank goodness. It’s about time we lifted them, given how much rain we’ve had and how green the city appears to be.”
We have talked earlier—and I spoke about it in the recent MPI discussion—about the fact that different people put different value on water. They want to use water for different things. There are people who like to grow a lawn. There are those that have shifted across to no lawn, just natives. There are people who like to wash their cars and there are those who take some pride in the fact that they drive around all year with a dirty car because they see it as their contribution to saving water in this dry climate.
Understanding how people value water differently will also give us guidance as to how we set permanent conservation measures. What would be useful information to have is a clear sense of which measures deliver the most benefits in terms of savings. We know, for example, that a study of domestic water consumption in the ACT from 2006 indicated that Canberrans used around 64 per cent of their water outdoors, which is why there has been so much focus on gardens. I note with some amusement that Mrs Dunne is almost becoming the city’s resident horticultural adviser with her comments on radio this morning.
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 pm.
MR RATTENBURY: Just before the dinner break I was about to comment on Mrs Dunne’s new-found status as Canberra’s horticultural adviser but I should turn back to the matter at hand. I had been talking about the fact that we really cannot turn our back on efficiency measures, despite the current, I guess, good fortune we have had in having some decent rainfall. I think we do need to continue to evaluate the permanent water restrictions. I note that, as I said earlier, we are still trying to get up to date on exactly where things are at. I believe there have been some adjustments to the permanent water restrictions but I am not sure that the community has been terribly involved in that and I think that is a point of concern.
But in looking at the future, we really need to focus on best practice water sensitive urban design, particularly in new developments. East Lake and Molonglo and the remaining areas that are to be developed in Gungahlin stand out as the real
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video