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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4776 ..

MRS BURKE: Good. I would like to see the government give broader consideration to installing one or more of these, initially in a public playground. Ultimately, it would be wonderful to see this product considered as a mainstream piece of equipment for any playground. Granted, the swings are not cheap. They are around $25,000 each. But I think expenditure on them would be well worth it, as they are safe and easy to use, meet standard and safety requirements, stand up to the rigours of an outdoor children's playground, are securely locked while not in use, and are Australian designed and manufactured. I think that is something good.

I am glad to see Mr Wood back for this part of the proceedings today. He has told me he has seen the swing. It was on display at the recent Australian Local Government Association conference-so we know you have been to the conference, Mr Wood; that is good-which was held at the National Convention Centre. And I am ever hopeful that he will now consider the benefits of installing such equipment in the ACT.

School water tank

MR CORNWELL (10.59): I rise to talk about a water tank in a school. A school here in the ACT-which can remain nameless; it is not important-decided that it would like to purchase a water tank, and they wondered whether they were eligible for the rebate of several hundred dollars. They were told by an ACTEW representative by telephone that they were entitled to it. They went ahead and purchased the water tank at a cost of several thousand dollars. After installation, they applied for the rebate and were told the claim was rejected because the school was not a residential property.

Apparently Environment ACT assesses the rebate applications, although ACTEW promotes the rebate. This seems to me to be a rather silly thing. I am sure there is a glitch here. Surely we are splitting hairs. If we are trying to encourage people, individuals who live in residential properties or indeed people in schools or any other building, to try to conserve water-water is the issue-it seems to me rather silly that we should have this glitch.

It is also very unfortunate that, when an organisation goes to the trouble of checking, it obtains misleading information. It is my intention to write to the minister-I think it would probably be to the Chief Minister because it appears it is Environment ACT that assesses the rebate-simply asking if this could be reconsidered. Not only could this be reconsidered in relation to this particular school, but perhaps some new and broader guidelines could be introduced. We are constantly told that we must conserve water. When schools and other bodies, as well as residences, go to the trouble to attempt to do so, I do not believe that they should be denied that opportunity because the rebate will apply only to a certain narrow area.


MS TUCKER (11.02): I am going to take the opportunity tonight to just mention that I am concerned when I see members of this place-particularly the Liberals have been doing this-making personal comments about people when they have no idea of the truth of their comments. I do not usually respond. I do not usually even talk in the adjournment debate, and, to a degree, I am still not sure if I should be even dignifying it with a response. But I just feel uncomfortable with it.

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