Page 4799 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, there are a couple of things that I need to comment on. It is a little disappointing that Mr Corbell has to take an issue where there seems to be a high level of agreement and sort of start off with a slanging match, be forced to withdraw words and accuse me of making personal reflections upon Mr Sullivan.
I did not do anything of the sort. I notice that Mr Speaker was surprised at the assertion that I had made personal reflections on Mr Sullivan. I did point out that there had been inconsistencies in the message that is coming from Actew about when water restrictions should be lifted. For the benefit of members and the community, I will highlight them again.
On 29 September on ABC Radio, Mr Sullivan said that Actew would look at water restrictions at the beginning of autumn. He said, “We would like to see what summer brings. We would like to see what the impact is if we have a sprinkler exemption over Christmas holidays, what that means and look at our water levels come the beginning of autumn.” This is what was reported by the ABC. I recall hearing that broadcast at the time. I thought that that was a surprising position given that I was actually driving through the rain at the time.
On 14 October in the Canberra Times Mr Sullivan was reported as saying that there would be two weeks consultation before deciding whether to revert to stage 1 water restrictions. Today, on page 2 of the Canberra Times, Mr Sullivan was reported as saying that soon there would be a lifting of exemptions on the use of sprinklers. But on page 1 of today’s Canberra Times there was a report of “a stunning turnaround”. It was stated that we would see the end of water restrictions and a return to “permanent water conservation measures”.
It is a pretty stunning turnaround if you started reading at the back of the paper and moved forward. You would have thought that it is in the offing and when you get to the front of the paper there is a different message. I am not quite sure how that came about, but there was certainly a change of mind yesterday amongst the people who manage water. It was a mixed message and it adds to the mixed messages that we have seen in the past. It adds to the mixed messages that we see when we look at the table that Mr Corbell has inserted in this amendment, which shows the way we have chopped and changed about when we go into particular levels of water restrictions. I think more than anything we do need some clarity.
The minister is running a particular line, as all of the Labor Party are doing this week. They think that they are on a winner when they say that the Liberal Party does not have any policy. The Liberal Party have had policy in relation to water restrictions since 2004. Our policy has been consistent and it has been consistently expressed by us. I went back to the original water conservation document that was released in the run up to the 2004 election.
It was reinforced at the 2008 election and it still stands as our policy. It clearly says in that document that we should have a thorough reassessment of water restrictions, that they should be reviewed, that we should move away from the random and arbitrary odds and even system and that we should move to a system where we encourage people, especially when we are at stage 1, to practise good horticultural practices and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video