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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1860 ..

We have other evidence of how well flow-limiting valves work. The 2001-02, Urban Services’ annual report revealed that tap valves were successfully trialled in two government-owned buildings. Due to the success, they are now going to be fitted in a third building. If they are good enough for ACT government office blocks, why is the story not being told far and wide? Why is the government not putting these valves in every government-owned building: every school, house, flat and office? Why does the recently introduced water strategy fail to even mention this measure?

I turn now to insinkerators. The ACT government, of both persuasions, has been committed over many years to a no waste by 2010 strategy. But, as I have said on many occasions, it would be hard to see much commitment to that from this government. It has done zip, particularly in regard to putrescible waste—bio-waste—which could be composted or have other applications. I have also said recently that, if we continue down this path under the leadership of this government, we will be hard pressed to meet the no-waste targets by 2050. If we want to get there, we need to make a massive culture change. People need to take responsibility for the waste that they generate.

I have stressed over and over again that we cannot shove putrescible waste into our landfill—out of sight, out of mind. It is irresponsible to shove putrescible waste into landfill, but it is much worse to shove it down the sink, knowing that it will ultimately end up in the river system. We are an inland city and we have a lot of obligations downstream. Insinkerators are a very bad way of managing waste. There are two problems with insinkerators: they are a hopeless way of getting rid of garbage and they are profligate in their use of water.

It has been pointed out to me by experts who were involved in the building of the lower Molonglo water quality control system that it was originally projected to serve a population that was much smaller than Canberra’s current population. It was essentially an American system that was brought here and established. On the basis of American or Californian calculations, it was based on much higher water use because most Californian homes at that stage had insinkerators. One of the reasons why the lower Molonglo water quality control system still works and is not overburdened is that, generally speaking, ACT residents do not have insinkerators. Given our water crisis and our need to do something much more sensible with putrescible waste, the Liberal opposition would like to prohibit the future installation of insinkerators.

The Liberal Party generally is reluctant to employ regulation over incentive. We would usually prefer to use financial incentives but we believe that this is too important an issue. There are many issues in relation to water efficiency where we need to create a cultural change; therefore, from time to time we need to lead by example through legislation. At this stage, this bill refers only to new domestic work. It is a start but we need to move on from here and make real commitments to real savings, not the token efforts currently being conducted by the government. In the spirit of making real inroads into water efficiency, I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell) adjourned to the next sitting.

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