Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 11 Hansard (Wednesday, 20 October 2010) . . Page.. 4795 ..

In relation to amendment No 2, I simply add this: I think it is part of the macro context that I was talking about before on this motion. The fact that we are in a La Nina weather year presents a particular weather pattern for us and, again, I think provides some context for the debate we are having.

Amendment No 3 picks up on the point Mrs Dunne was making before. I believe, the Greens believe, there is some value in being transparent about the triggers that set off the various levels of water restriction. As Mrs Dunne said, she has a similar set of words. I am not aware of the language but it is simply that point that the public has a great interest in this. I think the compliance is increased by having greater transparency. It makes it easier for members of this place to debate it and the like. I was simply seeking to make that information publicly available. It is not that Actew has declined to do this or anything similar. I think it is simply making the observation and making the suggestion that this is a useful thing to do.

I thank members for their indulgence perhaps in helping us work through these couple of little steps as we try to sort through the technicalities.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (7.48): Madam Assistant Speaker, the government would be pleased to support amendments Nos 1 and 3 that Mr Rattenbury has circulated. These amendments provide some further context in relation to the CSIRO assessments, which I think is valuable. In relation to the triggers for water restrictions, again the government accepts that the amendment adds value.

In fact, I think it is worth clarifying that the existing instruments that are available publicly do give a clear indication at what point the implementation of restrictions is triggered—that is, from lower levels to higher levels. But I accept that more guidance could be given as to the point at which restrictions are reduced. There is, I think, not as clear guidance on that, although I think Actew have been quite public about the considerations that they take into account in determining a relaxation on restrictions.

For that reason I am happy to support amendment No 3 also. The government will not support amendment No 2. I do not feel that it adds very much to the context of the motion. Other members may disagree, but the government will agree to amendments 1 and 3.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (7.50): I will speak to Mr Rattenbury’s amendments. I also seek your guidance, Madam Assistant Speaker. I have circulated some amendments. Should we deal with Mr Rattenbury’s amendments and then look at what is left over?

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): I believe that might be the easiest course, Mrs Dunne.

MRS DUNNE: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The Canberra Liberals will be happy to support Mr Rattenbury’s amendments in their entirety. I think that

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video