Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill
Page: 14745
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 2 March 2005.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [8.25 p.m.]: Although I speak on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill I do not lead on behalf of the Opposition: the shadow Minister will lead for the Opposition. The object of this bill is to give effect in this State to a nationally consistent water efficiency labelling and standards scheme by applying the Commonwealth Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act to New South Wales. The Minister said, in his second reading speech:
The bill will … give effect in this State to a nationally consistent Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards [WELS] scheme.
The purpose of the WELS scheme is to conserve water supplies by reducing water consumption through the adoption of water efficient appliances; to provide appliance efficiency and performance information to purchasers of water appliances to allow them to make a well informed purchasing decision; and to promote the adoption of efficient and effective water-use technology …
The proposed legislative approach is a Commonwealth-led legal framework, supported by mirror State and Territory legislation. Under this approach, the Commonwealth legislation would apply to corporations and importers. The State and Territory legislation would apply to businesses that are beyond the limit of Commonwealth constitutional power such as unincorporated businesses. The Commonwealth's Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Bill 2004 was passed by the Senate on 8 February 2005 and is awaiting assent. The legislation adopted by States and Territories will provide for the conferral of relevant powers and functions on a Commonwealth-based WELS regulator. The regulator will oversee the registration of WELS products to which the mandatory labelling and standards provisions apply, and will monitor and enforce compliance with the scheme.
The bill applies the Commonwealth water efficiency laws—which are defined in clause 4 as the Commonwealth Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act and all regulations, guidelines, principles, standards and codes of practice in force under that Act—as laws of New South Wales. It also provides that the following Commonwealth laws apply in New South Wales in relation to the applied provisions: the Acts Interpretation Act, and administrative laws defined in clause 4, except as provided by the regulations under the proposed Act. Other provisions of the bill include that regulations under the proposed Act may not apply to the Commonwealth water efficiency laws for the purposes of the proposed Act; and that the scheme regulator—the Commonwealth regulator—appointed under the Commonwealth Act and other authorities and officers have the same functions and powers under the applied provisions as they have under the Commonwealth water efficiency laws.
Clause 10 provides that an offence against the applied provisions is to be treated as if it were an offence against a law of the Commonwealth. Clause 13 provides that a person is not liable to be punished for an offence under the applied provisions if the person has been punished for the same offence under the Commonwealth water efficiency laws. Clause 14 provides that any matter arising in relation to the applied provisions will be taken to be a matter arising in relation to the laws of the Commonwealth, not New South Wales, and subclause (4) provides that any provision of a Commonwealth administrative law, which will apply because of clause 14, purporting to confer jurisdiction on a Federal court will be taken not to have that effect. The Legislation Review Committee shares the view of the Senate committee that strict liability may be appropriate when it is necessary to ensure the integrity of a regulatory regime, such as the one provided for in the Commonwealth Act, which this bill will implement in New South Wales.
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [8.36 p.m.]: I support the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill. The purpose of the bill before the House is to implement a water efficiency labelling and standards scheme for water appliances in New South Wales. The scheme is a national initiative: the Commonwealth, States and Territories have developed similar legislation to ensure that the scheme will be nationally consistent. The scheme is one of a suite of measures included in the Government's Metropolitan Water Plan to secure Sydney's water requirements over the next 25 years. Currently there is no nationally consistent reference instrument for comparing the efficiency of water appliances, such as clothes washers and dryers.
Our voluntary labelling scheme has been in place since 1988, but its impact has been limited because not all suppliers joined the scheme and some of the suppliers that joined the scheme chose to label only their more efficient products. Consumers are limited in their ability to compare the water efficiency of competing brands of an appliance when making a purchasing decision. The Water and Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme, which is known as the WELS scheme, will remedy this. The Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage published a regulatory impact statement on the proposed national WELS scheme. It contains a thorough cost-benefit analysis and identifies the impacts of the scheme on the water appliance industry and on consumers.
It is estimated that by the purchase of water-efficient appliances New South Wales consumers will save approximately $225 million over the next 18 years through reduced energy and water bills. The estimated net benefit to the Australian community as a whole over the same period is between $669 million and $674 million. For New South Wales, the WELS scheme is estimated to provide savings in annual water consumption of 29 billion litres in 18 years, and 87 billion litres nationally over the same period. The water savings generated by efficient appliances are substantial. An efficient shower head uses 40 per cent less water. An efficient dishwasher uses 50 per cent less water. Dual-flush toilets and efficient washing machines use up to 67 per cent less water.
More efficient clothes washers are the major contributor to the annual water consumption savings. Almost 50 per cent of future water consumption savings are attributed to efficient clothes washers. Water-efficient toilets and shower heads contribute 23 per cent and 21 per cent respectively to annual water consumption savings. Interestingly, the cost savings for water-efficient shower heads and clothes washers are almost the same because water-efficient shower heads save significantly more electricity and gas than do clothes washers. Almost 38 per cent of water and energy cost savings are attributed to efficient shower heads. Clothes washers and toilets contribute 41 per cent and 15 per cent respectively.
These reductions in consumption mean that consumers will have an opportunity to make significant savings on household bills. Over 10 years, an average household could save up to $828 in energy savings from showers, $341 in water savings from showers, $124 in water savings from toilet flushing and $509 in water savings from clothes washing. Recently while doorknocking, I spoke to a Kingswood resident about the household's water bill. They had recently linked into the Every Drop Counts Program which, as all honourable members would know, is part of the water saving initiatives in the Sydney Metropolitan Water Plan.
Mr Frank Sartor: The strong and detailed plan.
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: Yes, that strong and detailed plan. That household's most recent bill showed that 381 kilolitres of water had been consumed under the Every Drop Counts Program whereas the previous bill showed that 427 kilolitres had been consumed. Over the same period for the previous year, the consumption of water was 580 kilolitres. Signing up to the Every Drop Counts Program cost $22, but consumption was reduced by 220 kilolitres in a year, which is a magnificent saving. That example shows that, over 10 years, average water consumption reductions for that household will have resulted in real savings. In addition, the WELS scheme will cut greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the volume of hot water that is used in dishwashers, clothes washers, showers and taps. The electricity required for pumping water will also be reduced. It is estimated that the scheme will result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions of 570,000 tonnes annually in an 18-year period.
Among other environmental benefits are lower water consumption, which will reduce the environmental impact of wastewater disposal and increase water for environmental flows in the stressed Warragamba and Cox rivers which provide water for Sydney. Appliance manufacturers will be required to register their appliances with the WELS scheme regulator. A registration fee will be imposed that is calculated on a cost-recovery basis. The estimated annual cost of administering the WELS scheme is approximately $900,000 and, based upon this cost, it is estimated that the registration fee per appliance will be approximately $2,500. Appliance manufacturers will also have to pay for water efficiency tests on their appliances, the cost of physically affixing the labels to the appliance and managing labelling in retail establishments. It is estimated that these costs will add approximately 57¢ to the cost of a shower head, approximately 36¢ to the cost of a toilet, 46¢ to the costs of a clothes washer, and 64¢ to the cost of a dishwasher.
The scheme is not likely to have an impact on the number of retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers and importers in the local market, nor is it expected to impact on competition between suppliers. However, late last year when Sydney's Metropolitan Water Plan was launched, I spoke to Penrith retailers, including George Rabie from Little and Rabie RetraVision in Penrith. RetraVision was one of the first retailers to sign up for the washing machine rebate scheme. Mr Rabie was really enthusiastic about the scheme and the brands that attracted the rebate. He felt it was good for the marketing of washing machines, assisted him in advertising the products, and enabled him to guide consumers in their purchases. It is interesting to note that up until June 2004, the rebate was worth $100 for a washing machine and that 6,500 rebates were paid. The water savings per washing machine litres per year ranged from 15,000 litres to 20,000 litres. The total savings under the rebate program amount to 118 megalitres, which represents a considerable saving. It is good that George Rabie from Little and Rabie RetraVision was so keen to become involved in the program and, in the context of this bill, is so keen as a retailer to endorse consistent savings in the products he sells.
The mandatory standards applying to toilets will not impact adversely on Australian manufacturers as they already are subject to a plumbing standard which limits production to efficient dual-flush systems. However, this bill will make water efficiency a more significant factor in production differentiation for both consumers and manufacturers. In effect, labelling increases transparency and permits consumers to exercise an informed choice, as George Rabie noted last year when he helped to launch the Sydney Water Plan—Penrith. The scheme will drive manufacturers to produce more efficient appliances. It will complement the efforts of householders, community groups, businesses and local councils to conserve water. The bill is an important accompaniment to the Government's plan to secure Sydney's water supply for the next 25 years and it deserves our support.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [8.40 p.m.]: The bill takes some steps forward in regard to efficiently labelling products that consume our very valuable resource—water. The Carr Government would have us believe that the initiative is its own.
[Interruption]
The honourable member for Penrith gently guffaws—very politely, much better than the Minister sitting at the table.
Mr Frank Sartor: It is a joint ministerial initiative.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Now the Minister is indicating that it is a joint ministerial initiative from his tired old Labor Government here in New South Wales. In fact, this initiative has been driven by the Federal Coalition Government through meetings with the State governments. On 2 October 2003 the Commonwealth convened a meeting of State governments and the Government of New Zealand. The agreed outcome was implementation of a national mandatory water-efficiency labelling scheme covering shower heads, washing machines, dishwashers and toilets. It was also agreed that other products would be covered on a voluntary basis. The Minister from this tired old Labor State Government is trying now to capture the high ground by saying that his Government came up with this proposal.
It is a long while since this Government came up with any substantive proposals on anything in the water area. It was the Commonwealth that announced that it would draft national legislation and it would do it by directing the State and Territory governments to join with it in going down the path of ensuring that there is an effective water efficiency labelling scheme. Action, obviously, was taken a little quicker in the Federal Parliament. This Minister probably has not woken up to this until now. The first draft of the legislation was passed by the House of Representatives prior to the last election but unfortunately the proroguing of the Parliament intervened and the bill had to be reintroduced to be passed by both Houses.
This bill could have been initiated by the State Government, but it was not. The State Government waited for the lead from the Coalition Federal Government, the Liberal and National parties, before moving on the issue. There was not a word out of this Government. In the number of years that I have been a shadow Minister I have not heard one word about water labelling until the issue was driven by the Federal Government. This tired old Labor Government has presented the bill slowly and reluctantly, but it has done it. The Liberal and National parties acknowledge that the bill will take steps forward in preserving our precious water. For that reason the New South Wales Liberals and National parties will not oppose the bill.
I listened to the honourable member for Penrith with great interest because she broadened the debate by talking about the Metropolitan Water Plan. For that reason I have licence to talk about some of the other issues and the failings of the Carr Government in regard to its Metropolitan Water Plan. I cannot allow the House tonight to hear only the skewed and totally wrong perspective put forward by the honourable member for Penrith. She did not utter a word about the proposal by the tired State Labour Government to rip off consumers by upping water prices through a whole host of methods. This morning there was a report in the Daily Telegraph about submissions to the so-called Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] to have a two-tiered pricing system.
The New South Wales Liberal and National parties can tell New South Wales consumers, particularly those in the Sydney Water area, that it does not matter at what level of that tier they are, it will not mean lower water prices for consumers. It is just one more way of this tired old Labor Government dreaming up a new way to tax Sydney Water consumers with higher water charges. Not only is the Government looking to increase the prices; it has had the Department of Environment and Conservation—the Minister should take notice of this—submitting that in addition to upping the water prices under the guise of a two-tiered system, it also wants a risk premium. It has not had any media attention yet but I hope that as a result of the New South Wales Coalition bringing it to the attention of the Parliament that consumers in New South Wales will get to know about it. This is Bob Carr's own government department—
Mr Thomas George: They are just tired.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: A tired old Labor Government directing that its department find other ways of ripping off Sydney water consumers. What is the risk premium? It is a great euphemism from a tired old Labor Government. The one thing they have learnt under Bob Carr is how best to use the English language to deceive the public of New South Wales.
Mr Steven Pringle: Spin.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Yes. The honourable member for Hawkesbury actually understands the significance of difficult environmental issues. His electorate is right on the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, which receives far more pollution than it should because this Government has failed to upgrade sewage treatment plants on the Hawkesbury-Nepean. The department secretly proposed to IPART that there be a risk premium. What is it all about? It is not a payment for risk to protect the consumer; it is a payment that will have to be made by consumers because of the failed infrastructure after 10 years of a tired old Labor Government that has not renewed infrastructure.
Mr Thomas George: How long?
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Ten years of this Government—
Mr Steven Pringle: What sort of government?
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: A tired old Labor Government that has done nothing to renew infrastructure. Do honourable members know how much it has taken out of Sydney Water in that time?
Mr Steven Pringle: Billions.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: That is right, $2.3 billion out of Sydney Water's coffers. Where did that money come from in the first place? From Sydney Water consumers. It came from all of us as ratepayers, including the ratepayers in Penrith. The honourable member for Penrith did not even bother to raise the issue when she had the opportunity in the Chamber a few minutes ago. Families in the various parts of the north-west, the west and the south-west, in the Hawkesbury-Nepean area and all those areas west of the central business district that the Government seems to focus on—some families are quite large—will suffer very badly as a result of this Government's proposal to badge different ways of ripping off more money out of Sydney Water consumers.
Mr Steven Pringle: Like land tax; like everything else this Government does.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is. A cunning slug on a whole range of fronts. The Minister should take this seriously because his Government has already increased water prices while putting a gun at the head of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, through Sydney Water, asking the tribunal to give it more money. Sydney Water wants the tribunal to allow it to get more money out of consumers so it can fix the infrastructure that this tired old Government has failed to fix for the past 10 years while it ripped off $2.3 billion; it took the money and ran. There is no question that there is a lot to be done to guarantee the future of water suppliers of Sydney, particularly those in the Illawarra who will be impacted by the Government's attack on the Shoalhaven.
How bad is this problem? It is very bad. In April 2002, just one month short of three years ago, Sydney's dam levels were sitting at 82 per cent. In the past three years our dam levels have dropped dramatically to, sadly, just over 40 per cent. The failure to renew infrastructure is not limited to Sydney. In regional areas—including Tamworth, Dubbo and other places where people have a direct nexus with the next rainfall—the Government has cut back on its Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program. I concede that that was not all the fault of the present Minister for Energy and Utilities. When the Government came to office in 1995 it cut back the program by between 40 and 50 per cent. In more recent times the Government has realised it has to look as though it is doing something. So, as the honourable member for Hawkesbury said earlier, it has developed a bit more spin. We heard a little of that today when the Minister answered a question without notice.
The Government has allocated funds—there is no question about that—but it has made those funds impossible to access. Effectively the Government has told councils that they will have to pay about 80 per cent of the cost of renewing infrastructure. That is unacceptable for a Government that should be governing for the whole of New South Wales. Many New South Wales villages, towns and rural cities are located on rivers and they need to treat their wastewater to a very high standard. Currently, much of that wastewater is returned to the river system, but it is not treated as well as it should be. Hence, the quality of our rivers is not as high as it should be.
The Opposition is telling the Government that while it wants water labelling, while it wants to have efficiency in certain areas, and while it follows on the tailcoats of the Federal Government, it will happily go with the Government. But the Opposition will not accept the Government's failure to look after town and country water and sewerage services in rural New South Wales; and the Opposition will not accept the Government's failure to come up with a realistic plan for water for Sydney.
Mr Frank Sartor: What is your plan? We have not heard one yet.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Today the Minister said we had a plan. He said we were following—
Mr Frank Sartor: Malcolm Turnbull.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: No—that Malcolm Turnbull was following our plan; that is what the Minister said today. Tonight he is saying we do not have a plan. The Minister is all over the place like a dog's breakfast. I think he should go back to Sydney Town Hall, where a few people accepted whatever he mouthed off about. But in this House we listen closely to what he is saying; and we do not like what we have heard. The Metropolitan Water Plan announced by the State Government is nothing more than spin; it is an empty sham; it is a nothing plan. It came only as a result of very strong pressure from the New South Wales Opposition highlighting, on behalf of the people of Sydney in particular, that this Government has no plan to deliver a sustainable water supply for Sydney.
Mr Thomas George: There are four former mayors over there, who should know what you are talking about.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Yes, there are four former mayors, all of whom have done nothing. There is the honourable member for Rockdale, who was elected on the coattails of some Labor deal and did not even go to full pre-selection. There is the honourable member for Strathfield, who was certainly a mayor. There is the honourable member for Penrith, who was in local government. There is the honourable member for Coogee, who is probably more interested in this issue because he is not far from the sewage that is being pumped into the Pacific Ocean. The Opposition has been calling for a plan for a sustainable water future for Sydney. What has the Premier delivered? He has delivered what he thinks is a sustainable re-election spin plan, by talking about a 25-year water plan, but delivering next to nothing.
I will break it down. The Government talked about deepwater storage, and it is true that there is a plan to spend a little bit of money to take water from the bottom level of dam storage. That will hold out for another month or two or three, but there is a finite amount of water, and when we get to the bottom of that we will be drinking mud. The alternative supply is from the Shoalhaven. The Government has announced that it will take high-water flows from the Shoalhaven. The residents of the Illawarra are rightly concerned about taking that amount of water from the Illawarra. There has been great consternation and debate about this tired Labor Government not thinking of anything better than raiding the Shoalhaven.
The Government will not tell the public what the environmental downside is of raiding the Shoalhaven. Additional pumping will be required and additional power will be required, and of course that takes us into another area of incompetence and inefficiency by the Government; the National Electricity Market Management Company forecast that we are facing blackouts by 2008-09—even before the Government can raid the Shoalhaven. The Government is prepared to pour tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while it pumps water out of the Illawarra against the wishes of the local people. All that is because the Government will not come up with a sustainable water plan for Sydney.
As the Opposition has said, a sustainable water plan for Sydney should start with using the equivalent of the 1,100 Olympic pools of water that each day pass through Sydney's three main sewage treatment plants. That water could be available if the Government took just a few modest steps towards encouraging and supporting the reuse and appropriate treatment of the equivalent of 1,100 Olympic pools of water. Whether that water is drunk by Sydneysiders or goes back into environmental flows in the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, it is a major commodity that the Government seems to be totally blind to.
This tired old Labor Government has no vision whatsoever for a sustainable water future for Sydney. And what is the Government going to do? As I said before, the best it has done is to introduce this bill and jump on the coat-tails of the Federal Government with a labelling system that we all agree is a very sensible system. Gee whiz, if the Minister thinks that is as good as it gets, he does not deserve to hold his position; and nor does the Premier. At the moment a consortium called Services Sydney has a plan. Services Sydney is doing precisely what the Opposition has been encouraging the Government to do. Services Sydney has asked for access to the 1,100 Olympic pools of water that flow into the Pacific Ocean daily. It has said to the Government, "Give us access to that water for environmental flows and we will give you water for use on golf courses; we will give you water so that you do not have to take water out of the State's potable water system." What has been the New South Wales Government's response to that proposal? It has been a very negative, carping, complaining response. The Government has said, "We do not want to do that. We think that is a silly idea."
When pushed to the limit by Services Sydney and taken to the National Competition Council, the Government went to the next step and decided it would no longer be critical. Who could forget the spectacle in this Chamber last year when I asked the new Minister what he proposed to do about Services Sydney. Lo and behold, at the end of question time, despite the fact that the question had been ruled out of order, the Minister jumped up and answered it. The Minister has no commitment to the reuse of water.
Again today we had the spectacle of the Minister jesting in the Chamber and making fun of the fact that a few months ago I, the shadow minister, had brought a bottle of Singapore water into the Chamber and offered it to the Premier. I suggested he should have a sip of that water. My purpose in doing that was to let the Premier be a statesman for a change, instead of a spin doctor. He sniffed the water but did not swallow any of it.
Mr Thomas George: You swallowed it.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I swallowed it. I was happy to swallow it. I have swallowed quite a bit more of that water since, as others have done, including the honourable member for Hornsby and a number of other members on the Coalition benches. I will not embarrass the Government by naming the very senior Government member who approached me after I did that, seeking to know more about Singapore water and how it worked.
Ms Virginia Judge: It's actually called new water, by the way.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Look, I know the honourable member for Strathfield has been there. She very kindly told me she went along shortly after that. The Government's senior advisers were unaware that Singapore was operating at that level, producing potable water—six hours north! What is being done in Singapore is a model for what should be happening in Sydney. Four years ago the Singapore Government realised it had a problem because of treaty issues with its neighbour, Malaysia. Singapore realised it could not rely on water beyond two treaty dates a number of years hence, the first in 2011, and it decided to just get on with things. The four years that have elapsed since Singapore first decided to look at this problem included one-and-a-half to two years of planning.
Mrs Judy Hopwood: Well organised.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Very well organised. The Singapore Government is not a tired old government like this Labor Government; it is a good government that is getting on with the job, providing sustainable water for Singapore's future. It came up with a multipronged approach and we in the Opposition support such an approach for Sydney. It is a sensible approach. Just as you cannot put all your eggs in one basket, you cannot expect all your water to come from one source.
The Singapore government decided it would find different sources of water, but first it established a new water plant, located it near a sewage plant, and began to treat the sewage through reverse osmosis processes. The result is pure water—water so clean that they have to put additives in it. It is so clean that when it passes through the pipes it actually sucks out ions from the pipes. They have to load some hydroxide back into the water. Singapore discovered that even if the water is not used for drinking—despite the fact that it is of potable quality—it is so good that it could be sold to industry and industry no longer needed to consume quite so much water. In fact, the same volume of water could be used 20 times more often through the cycles of industry.
Ms Virginia Judge: Point of order: With great respect to the honourable member, I believe he has strayed from the leave of the bill. The bill deals with labelling but the honourable member is talking about using recycled water, which is a long way from the ambit of this bill. He should come back to the leave of the bill.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: To the point of order: You may have been somewhat distracted looking into matters of great significance as Acting-Speaker, but when I extended into this subject I was responding to the honourable member for Penrith, who strayed into other areas, including the metropolitan water plan and all those issues that go with that plan. It was outside the leave of the bill, but, nevertheless, she raised the subject.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! In a second reading debate a member is entitled to make passing reference to matters broadly related to the subject of the legislation. The key words are "passing reference". I noted the passing reference made by the honourable member for Penrith. I suggest to the honourable member for Wakehurst that he has reached the end of his "passing reference" stage and that he should now return to the leave of the bill. He may make further passing references to the same topic later in the debate.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I will accept that. I will make some further passing references.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Not straight away.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: "Passing comment" within the ambit of a 15-minute contribution as opposed to "passing comment" within the unlimited time allowed a shadow minister leading for the Opposition suggests that I can make much longer passing comment. I am now making that longer passing comment. The Opposition is suggesting that the labelling of products is an important part of ensuring sustainable water supply, but it is only a very small part of it. Labelling is the easy part for this tired old Labor Government. The Government has to accept that it should be looking at projects such as that put forward by Services Sydney and taken to the National Competition Council—which Services Sydney has now taken to the National Competition Council tribunal—that involve big picture, visionary recycling, and reuse of Sydney's water.
The reuse of water should be at the forefront of this Government's policy. Instead, that big old dinosaur, Sydney Water, which employs many faithful and competent workers, has not come up with the vision that should be driven by government. Sydney Water needs to have that vision driven from the top. It is not going to get it from this tired old Labor Government, but we know it must happen. Unless we get some real vision and encouragement for the reuse of water, Sydney is going to be in deep trouble. At the moment we are experiencing heavy rainfall. A few minutes ago the Minister delighted in interjecting, "It's raining, Brad." Well, good for him; he has worked out fact one for the day. The Opposition is more concerned that only a fraction of that water will actually find its way into the catchment, although I have heard that water is falling over the catchment area. When I looked out the windows this afternoon a vast quantity of water was falling all over Sydney, but where is it now? It is in the Pacific Ocean.
Mr Steven Pringle: Out at sea.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: As the honourable member interjects, it is out at sea. It is in the Pacific Ocean. The harvesting of stormwater and the serious promotion of harvesting stormwater that falls across the Sydney region is critical. I refer again to Services Sydney Pty Ltd. We had that embarrassing spectre when the Premier, who did not say a word about water reuse as proposed by Services Sydney, sent his lawyers to the Australian Competition Tribunal two weeks ago and said, "I want the right of audience. I want to be able to have a say in this matter. I want to be able to explain why the Government is not a visionary government, why it is not prepared to do anything to drive new vision into Sydney Water and why it is prepared to let Sydney run out of water." We need some vision. The Government must make a real commitment to the reuse of water and to the harvesting of stormwater.
Until the Government talks about a long-term plan for a new dam—not a plan for this year, next year or the year after—it is not being serious with Sydney residents. When the Premier came into office he said that he wanted to be known as the green Premier. That was his first pithy little title. So he whacked in a few national parks but he did not allocate money to provide resources or to enable the management of those national parks. In relation to water he said, "Cancel any plans and any thoughts you might have, put an X through any proposals, no more consideration will be given to a dam."
Mr Thomas George: To dams anywhere.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: "No consideration will be given to a dam anywhere." The Government is not prepared to consider contingencies relating to dams. How dishonest, dishonourable and disgusting that is! On every occasion that the New South Wales Coalition, on behalf of the people New South Wales, sought information about the planning for a dam it was told, "We do not have any plans or any documents relating to the consideration of any future dams." It does not matter whether we are talking about the Sydney Catchment Authority or about Sydney Water, nobody has any plans. Where are they? Are they in the Minister's drawer? We do not know. However, we do know that every week 1,000 additional people are coming into Sydney. That equates to half a million additional people since this tired old Government started off on its first few days and we learned it was going to be a spin doctor government.
Mr Frank Sartor: Point of order: Clearly the honourable member is not making a passing reference to these issues; he is using this debate as an opportunity to trot out every bit of irrelevant rhetoric, which is something that Opposition members often seek to do. I would not mind if he was broadly relevant to the subject at hand but he is entirely out of order.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I uphold the point of order. I was looking for the relevant standing order before I interrupted the honourable member for Wakehurst. He is a long way from the leave of the bill, and I draw him back to it.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I am not outside the leave of the bill. I refer to the regulatory impact statement. If honourable members want me to go through every page of that 200-page statement I am happy to do so until midnight. Issues such as the need to harvest water are contained in that regulatory impact statement.
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: You ruled that the honourable member was outside the leave of the bill. You upheld the point of order that was taken earlier by the Minister. At that point the honourable member, who had his back turned to you, turned around and began to argue with your ruling. I ask you to restate your ruling so that he understands it.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst was not arguing with my ruling. He moved on to another matter about the regulatory impact statement. I am interested in determining its relevance to the bill. He may still be outside the leave of the bill but I will give him some time to develop his argument.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill is nothing more than a drop in the bucket of Sydney's future water needs. It is a clear indication that the Government is only capable of dealing with small issues, and that is all it does. The Premier and the tired old Labor Government are able to cope only with small bite-size chunks. The Government must deal with the big issues. If it does not, and if rain does not fall in the catchment, we will lose roughly 0.5 per cent of our total water capacity each week. I am grateful that is has rained, and I am sure every Sydneysider feels the same way. The loss each week of 0.5 per cent of our total water capacity means that in 80 weeks, or a little over a year, we could be out of water. The Government thinks that praying for rain is a solution to the problem. We say it is not.
Mr Gerard Martin: You are in trouble if Thomas is helping you out.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The honourable member for Lismore gave me some interesting facts about the electorate of the honourable member for Bathurst. He pointed out that the honourable member has been doing nothing about the water shortage in his electorate. There are major problems in his electorate that he knows nothing about. The Opposition does not oppose this bill. I welcome the fact that the Government has finally done what the Federal Coalition Government suggested. However, it is time that it took some of the other proposals seriously. If the Government does not address the sustainable part of Sydney's water supplies we are all at risk of having no water in Sydney in just over 80 weeks. The Government is not doing enough in relation to the water shortage. I leave the Government with this final message: This tired old Labor Government is doing nothing for Sydney's future water supplies.
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [9.17 p.m.] I support the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill. Every member in this House would agree that water is one of our most precious resources—and it is a finite, not infinite, resource. We must take every possible step to maximise the sensible and efficient use of water and we must protect our precious resource. I cannot understand why any honourable member would not speak in support of any measure implemented by the Government to save that precious resource. The bill will give effect to a national and consistent water efficient labelling scheme. The Government will then work with other governments to put in place a mandatory national water efficiency labelling scheme which would give all consumers the information they needed to make well-informed choices when purchasing water appliances such as showerheads for new homes, washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, taps and flow regulators, or when they are doing renovations
Every working Australian can play a part in that scheme. We can all contribute towards saving our precious finite resource not only for ourselves but also for future generations. It is estimated that the scheme will result in annual water savings of 29 billion litres within 18 years. During that period it will provide water consumers with net benefits in the vicinity of $225 million. No-one would say that that is not a good step, a step in the right direction. Those benefits will arise from a reduction in water and electricity bills. More efficient appliances will use less water and, therefore, less energy, which is commonsense. As I said earlier, I cannot understand why Opposition members are filibustering, getting agitated and going off on tangents about sewerage schemes and water recycling issues when the Government has put in place practical solutions to those problems.
[Interruption]
There is a definition for people who carry on like this. They think they are experts. My definition of an expert is a drip under pressure. Today we have seen drips under pressure, spouting forth with hollow words. They are so frustrated and agitated because they know that this energised and positive Government has policies and plans. I note that the people in the gallery are smiling and nodding. We are an energised Government, and we are bringing in, with the support of this proactive Minister and his hardworking staff, a bill to make sure that each and every one of us can save every precious drop of water we possibly can. I am pleased that I can go back to my electorate and say I spoke in this Chamber in support of a measure to save water.
The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme complements the suite of water-saving measures in the New South Wales Government's Metropolitan Water Plan. It is a holistic approach to saving water. Australia is one of the driest continents on this unique planet in the solar system. Only so much water falls from the sky, and we must do everything we possibly can to ensure we capture that water. I am not one of those politicians who simply spout forth with empty, hollow words. I have a rainwater tank on my property, and with that tank I am trying to capture at least 25 per cent of rainwater, which would normally be washed into the street and into the gutters. I am using that rainwater to water my outdoor garden. Which member opposite has a rainwater tank? Does the honourable member for Wakehurst have a rainwater tank? Does the honourable member for Hawkesbury have a rainwater tank? Does the honourable member for Lismore have a rainwater tank?
Mr Thomas George: I have two rainwater tanks.
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: Good on you; that shows good sense. People who live in the bush know how precious water is. My dad lives on a farm and he has at least two rainwater tanks, as well as a few mini-dams. He is a bit of an inventor, and he had his own bush way of adjusting the toilets in our home—in those days there was no fancy labelling scheme—to make sure that when we flushed the toilet we did not waste water.
[Interruption]
I will have a drink of water. I appreciate every drop of that precious resource, particularly at the moment because I have had major surgery and I have a mouthful of stitches. Our proactive, energised and positive Government has implemented a range of water-saving initiatives. One of them is the retrofit program. As at 19 February 2005, 262,779 households have been retrofitted. That was not the situation 10 years ago. The number of triple-A rated showerheads installed totals 311,864. I hope the honourable member for Wakehurst has had a triple-A rated showerhead installed for when he has his lovely, hot shower. Water savings per household are 20,900 litres per year. Total water savings from the retrofit program are 5.5 billion litres per year. Total water savings per household are $21, the total water savings cost per year is $5.56 million, total energy savings per showerhead are $60, and the total energy savings cost per year is $18.6 million.
[Interruption]
Do members opposite suggest that is nothing? These are measures that people have adopted, and I am sure they are happy about it, because they feel they have done their part. In conclusion, I remind the House that the bill is only one of a number of measures the Government has introduced to save this precious resource so that people in urban and rural areas have enough water, and to ensure that our wonderful biodiversity is protected. We must look after and treasure our country's unique flora and fauna. We would be totally irresponsible if we did not do everything we can, with passion and energy, to make a difference. That is what the Government is doing.
Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [9.24 p.m.]: All members on this side of the House, and indeed every Sydney resident, would agree totally with the overall sentiments of the honourable member for Strathfield. But, unfortunately, like everything else the Government does, it is all spin with little substance. The bill relates to the great, laudable objectives we are talking about: the potential to save millions of litres of water and the promotion of water efficiency. By way of comparison, Sydney Water and other companies are talking about how and where we use the precious resource of water; providing new and exciting solutions to river flows, effluent reuse, sewerage treatment, ocean outfalls, existing sewerage plants, biosolids management, and greenhouse efficiency; and assistance for irrigators and farmers. It is a sensible proposal, and the Government ought to take it on board. The Government is tired; it has lost the plot. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday the Premier took the extraordinary step of seeking a judge's permission to intervene in a controversial court fight to dismantle Sydney Water's monopoly. The Government is deliberately going out of its way to prevent Sydney residents from receiving an adequate water supply.
There is a second proposal, which the Government probably does not even know about but it has dismissed upfront. I refer to the Upper Blue Mountains Scheme, under which another company proposes to send the sewage from the upper Blue Mountains to the Lithgow area to be used in the power stations there. Instead of clean water being used, the company has an innovative proposal to use recycled sewage to do exactly the same job: to provide clean, potable water for Sydney residents. The residents of the Hawkesbury district in particular have been demanding—
Mr Frank Sartor: Point of order: The honourable member for Hawkesbury has not addressed the subject matter of the bill; he has spoken entirely about other matters.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Hawkesbury has strayed from the subject matter of the bill for the past two minutes. I ask him to return to the leave of the bill.
Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: I refer to some of the other attributes of the bill. It speaks about saving many millions of litres of water and providing water efficiency. Returning to my earlier theme, water efficiency would be achieved by recycling water from the upper Blue Mountains and using it in the power stations in the Lithgow area. The honourable member for Strathfield referred to the need for rainwater tanks. Unfortunately the Government has let down the residents of many parts of the Hawkesbury electorate, as well as residents of the Penrith electorate. Residents who live in areas adjacent to, but not part of, the area for which Sydney Water is responsible are not entitled to a water tank subsidy. Indeed, huge areas of New South Wales do not have access to the scheme.
The Government is out of touch with the needs of New South Wales residents; it is not providing water tank subsidies to vast numbers of people. If the Government were serious about doing something about the shortage of water in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney, it would implement a number of strategies. Those strategies include capturing stormwater that is going out to sea, providing a subsidy for water tanks to people across New South Wales, and embracing the alternative technologies that are already available.
The Government should support the services provided by Sydney Water, the upper Blue Mountains Scheme and, more importantly, the Three Towns Sewerage Scheme, which services Freemans Reach, Glossodia and Wilberforce. Hawkesbury council has put forward a great proposal. It wants to recycle the water from those three towns and use it to irrigate the turf farms and vegetable gardens of Sydney, which are crucial to our food supply. However, yet again the Government has ignored the proposal. The Government has lost touch. It needs to get back to reality instead of concentrating on spin yet again. The Government is tinkering at the edges rather than tackling the important issues confronting Sydney.
Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [9.29 p.m.], in reply: I am enormously disappointed by debate on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill, with the exception of the contributions of my colleagues the honourable member for Penrith and the honourable member for Strathfield, who made terrific speeches that were relevant to the legislation. Opposition members sought to repeat their antics of the previous sitting week, when they used the second reading debate on a bill about narrow electricity supply issues to score cheap political points in the most verbose and boring manner imaginable. They think that is somehow important to the people of New South Wales. We could condense the entire contribution of the honourable member for Wakehurst, the shadow Minister for Energy and Utilities, to five minutes—and that is before we discount those comments that were worthless!
We have heard much Opposition rhetoric about matters not related to the bill. Opposition members support the bill but they think it is fine to spend about an hour of Parliament's time waffling on, at great expense—they feel good when they hear the sound of their own voices. Virtually the only minor Opposition comment relevant to the bill is that it is a Federal idea. But it was not an idea of the Federal Government. The issue was discussed during the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council in 2002, at which New South Wales was represented by the Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment. In fact, Victoria had already begun to implement a similar scheme, the Commonwealth picked it up and it was decided subsequently at a ministerial council meeting in October 2003 to introduce the scheme nationally. So it was not a Federal idea but a Victorian idea, which we have embraced. New South Wales will pursue it further. The Minister for the Environment and I have talked about raising other issues at a national level, such as introducing minimum standards for appliances. That will save a heap of water. It is a positive move, consistent with the New South Wales Government's strong and detailed plan.
It is a sensible plan, unlike the Services Sydney Pty Ltd proposal, which Opposition members are running around promoting. I have spoken with Nick Greiner, who heads a water company, and several other water company heads who have been lobbied by Services Sydney. None of them will touch the proposal. This may be because Services Sydney wants a subsidy of $500 million from Sydney Water. It also wants us to buy a lot of reuse water that we may or may not need because at certain times of the year we do not need to augment environmental flows. It then proposes to charge people for their sewerage service, which has already been provided for. With the greatest respect to Services Sydney, people have access to sewerage now. The scheme may not be viable. There is no access scheme anywhere in the world of the nature proposed by Services Sydney. It proposes, it seems, that the Government charge Sydney taxpayers hundreds of dollars extra each year to support a boutique scheme.
The Government is promoting reuse. The rollout of our various schemes will produce 80 billion litres of reuse water in the next decade. As for Singapore water—which also has nothing to do with this bill—only 1 per cent of reuse water in Singapore finds its way into the drinking water system after it is shandied through the dam system. Listening to the honourable member for Wakehurst, one would think everyone in Singapore is drinking reuse water. That is rubbish. Only 1 per cent is shandied—at great cost—and most of it is used for industrial purposes. The Government has a strong, detailed and comprehensive plan to secure our water by diversifying supply. It will deal with demand and a range of other issues. We have a cost-effective and sensible plan. We will not throw billions of dollars at boutique or silly schemes that will not work. I thank the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.