Page 3756 - Week 12 - Thursday, 22 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is not just as simple as doing it; we have to be sure that we do it in a safe way. That means human responsibility and not just expecting the government to do everything for us. There will always be tension between supply and demand. Indeed, it does pose difficult policy decisions about which, where and how much ought to be spent. I certainly agree that actions need to be taken to ensure supply as well as reduce demand. However—and perhaps I am agreeing with Mr Stefaniak when I say this—I do not believe we necessarily have the balance right yet. In the government’s recent water announcements, $253 million was committed to increasing supply, yet only $2 million is set to be spent on demand management. I believe that, whilst expansion of the Cotter Dam is the best option for increasing Canberra’s water storage capacity, we do need to make sure that there are mitigation measures to ensure the continued survival of those species that may be threatened by the changes the dam will make to the ecosystems they rely upon.
Reducing demand has a more immediate impact, and we should have more focus on that. For instance, the ACT’s rebate for water tanks at the moment is mediocre in comparison with other states. After a phone call to Bunnings, one of my staff members found out that it would cost about $3,000 for a 10,000 litre tank to be installed and plumbed into the toilet and laundry. No doubt Mr Gentleman is discovering all this. The current rebate in the ACT is $800. In South Australia it is also $800, which is rather odd considering their water urgency there. In Queensland and Victoria it is $1,000 and in Sydney it is $1,500.
Given that we know how effective tanks are not just in providing storage, but also in increasing people’s understanding of water as a finite resource and not just something that comes endlessly out of a tap, we should be doing our utmost to encourage residents to install tanks in their homes. This would be a first step in the better use of territory resources. A recycling scheme, however effective it is, will have quite strong energy implications for the ACT. At the end of the day we only have so much water. Building dams and transferring water will not make it rain. The factor most under our control is how we use the water. Actew is in the business of selling water and, as a territory-owned corporation, returning a level of revenue to the ACT. While this is the case I suspect that there will always be less effort put into reducing demand rather than increasing supply.
Let us remember, too, that under the Canberra plan Actew is charged with providing water for 500,000 people by 2030. I believe that we need to rethink that target. I am not sure we are going to get there. Even if we did, is that the right approach? Every time we add a new development, a new suburb or a new town, in the case of Molonglo, we have to make sure that we have a commensurate decrease in the use of water. There is a level at which Canberra will become unsustainable as an inland city, and I think that we have got to start factoring that into the way we talk and plan.
Highlighted in the estimates report was that going to stage 4 water restrictions would result in a loss of approximately $40 million. Unfortunately, I can imagine that this potential loss could have influenced Actew’s decision not to go to stage 4 water restrictions more than the government’s concern about people’s gardens. But we now have a permanent water conservation regime, and I applaud that. On the other hand, I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .