- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 7 April 2005
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 46 of 56
| Next Item »
Page: 15247
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 6 April 2005.
Mr IAN COHEN [5.02 p.m.]: Yesterday I was offering some justified criticism of the one-eyed attitude the Government has had over many years to the use of waste water in both the Sydney Basin and areas up and down the coastline. The Government's culture of putting pipes into the sea and "end-of-pipe" solutions seems to have permeated Sydney Water and other authorities over that time. It is a generational direction for dealing with waste water. After I said that yesterday, the Minister issued a press release. Although I condemned the Minister yesterday, I congratulate him today. In part, the Minister's press release, entitled "Investing in NSW Future Through Water and Energy Savings Funds" stated:
Business and industry will be given incentives to become water and energy efficient as part of the Carr Government's strong and detailed plans to protect the environment and make Sydney and other NSW centres more sustainable.
Minister for Energy and Utilities Frank Sartor has announced some businesses will also be required to prepare water and energy savings action plans, under The Energy Administration Amendment (Water and Energy Savings) Bill 2005.
That legislation is to be introduced into State Parliament. The press release continued:
The measures are expected to save up to 80 billion litres of water each year and 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
Greater efficiency will also reap major rewards for consumers, realising a gross saving on energy bills of $370 million.
"Sydney's growing population is placing increased pressure on our water and power supplies, " Mr Sartor said.
"Households, which account for 70 per cent of Sydney's water consumption, have saved close to 113 billion litres of water since October 2003.
That is an indication of the population's reaction; its support for more stringent measurers—pulling its weight, if you like—on water consumption. The Minister continued:
"Now, it's time for business, government, and councils to do more.
"Water is a low-cost input for business, and new technology designed to save this precious resource can take years to pay off in the form of lower bills.
"As part of the Metropolitan Water Plan, we have already announced a $30 million fund to encourage business to invest in water savings measures.
"In order to meet the challenges of our growing population, the same principle should also be applied to our energy network.
The Minister extolled the benefits of the proposed legislation, and I commend him for his efforts, particularly with regard to the State's water supply and the range of measures that the Government is considering, including greater re-use. The Government estimates that each year there will be a saving of 5.3 billion litres of water. The press release continued:
Mr Sartor has today announced the establishment of a working party to implement re-use schemes at Caltex and Continental Carbon, using high-quality effluent from Cronulla Sewage Treatment Plant.
A separate working party is being set up in conjunction with Orica to examine the best use for treated groundwater from its reverse osmosis plant in Botany Bay.
Hopefully that will be successful and effluent can cleaned up and re-used. The press release continued:
Sydney Water itself faces tougher licence conditions, including a 25 per cent reduction in leakage from the system by 2009.
These are all steps in the right direction and are to be commended. My office has issued a media release congratulating the Government on taking a significant step towards meeting the targets to reduce greenhouse emissions in announcing the new water and energy savings funds. We are using our water and energy more efficiently, and that is the key to Sydney becoming more sustainable. Consumers also benefit, as money saved as a result of reduced demand on energy supplies can be passed on to them. Hopefully new funding will encourage investment in water efficiency technology, and with increased competition to produce energy and water saving technology and cost savings new jobs will be created.
Those activities constitute a moving away from the "end-of-pipe" solution that I have been criticising. Cost savings can be achieved by diversifying the remedies, and that, in itself, will create a great deal more jobs. If the new funds are managed by independent not-for-profit bodies, and they are guaranteed an existence of least 10 years so that they have a chance to work and be implemented properly, there will be hope. I certainly look forward to some degree of success. In New South Wales we have to go much further with water efficiency than just introducing labelling and standards. Yesterday I drew attention to the great volume of water that is wasted in urinals throughout Parliament House. In a meeting with the Minister I suggested that dual-flush toilets should be installed in Parliament House. A major saving could be achieved by such basic standards being achieved in Parliament House and in other government buildings throughout Sydney. I do not know what rating the cisterns in Parliament House would receive; probably only half a star at present.
I have discussed this issue with the Minister. Will he reconsider the matter and conduct an audit into water usage in Parliament House, all the government-owned buildings in Sydney and other centres throughout New South Wales? Commercial firms often get off lightly as the Government does not require them to provide decently designed buildings and to effect proper use of water.
Water is a vital and undervalued resource. New South Wales has been experiencing one of the worst droughts in recent history. The water levels in our dams have been at record lows. This problem is not likely to go away in the future, with climate change posing real threats because of higher temperatures and more frequent droughts. Sydney's rapidly growing population is also putting immense pressure on our dwindling water supply. These issues must be addressed urgently. The answer is not in the construction of new dams, the augmentation of existing dams or the pumping of water out of our river systems or underground reservoirs. Typically, these are the stopgap measures that have been put forward by Sydney Water for generations. They are the sorts of methods that, by their very nature, are finite, and they are liable to fail eventually. If they do not fail in the process of delivering enough water, they fail to ensure that our resources are used wisely.
I will refer later to the situation in Shoalhaven. Sydney Water failed miserably in its removal of water from one catchment to another and one catchment was denied appropriate environmental flows. Resources were not moved to another catchment. Today I attended a forum on the coalmining industry that examined the amount of water being used by that industry. The Government must subsidise rivers and environments that are suffering because of the unreasonable extraction of water by coalmines and because of the damage and cracking that is being caused to riverbeds by mining activities.
Minister Hickey stopped one coalmine operating on the Nepean River. I understand the coalmine will operate right up to the edge of the river on one side and will recommence on the other side. We still have a great many problems to resolve. It does not involve rocket science; it requires something quite basic. What resources do we have in our catchment areas? I am sure that members of The Nationals who are in the Chamber would appreciate working creatively with such a limitation.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Like we are already doing in Wagga Wagga?
Mr IAN COHEN: As the Hon. Melinda Pavey said, it is being done in certain areas. Sewage effluent is being reused in an attempt to maintain our river flows.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Eighty per cent of sewage in the Shoalhaven is being reused.
Mr IAN COHEN: That is so, but the Shoalhaven has another set of specific problems to which I will refer later. This is a massive attack on the local water supply to augment the Sydney supply. It is completely out of balance, and after many years the Government insists on continuing to pump effluent into the ocean.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: A thousand swimming pools a day.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Melinda Pavey. The equivalent of 1,000 swimming pools of effluent a day is being pumped from three ocean outfalls.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Raw sewage.
Mr IAN COHEN: In general it is a relatively low level of treatment, although it is improving at some outfalls. But regardless of the level of treatment, these outfalls are expelling our valuable resources. I have spoken to Services Sydney, a private company that has some creative solutions for Sydney's water problems.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What is the Government doing?
Mr IAN COHEN: Frank Sartor described it as a boutique solution, which is an interesting way to describe it.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times, particularly interjections from members who are already on two calls to order. Members will allow Mr Ian Cohen to proceed without interruption.
Mr IAN COHEN: The point will be reached at which there is a higher level of treatment of sewage, and that will make it more readily available for reuse in the community. The systems adopted by Australia in this regard are lagging far behind those that are being implemented by many other countries. European rivers pass through half a dozen sets of kidneys on their way to the ocean.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Is it any wonder? We have had a Labor Government in office for 10 years!
Mr IAN COHEN: I would like to think that Coalition members would be better in government than Labor members, but the people of New South Wales have very little choice at the moment. And they will have no choice until the Greens grow and increase their numbers in this Chamber.
The Hon. Don Harwin: You will not grow until you decide to do your preference deals with the Coalition.
Mr IAN COHEN: I am interested in the presumption of the Hon. Don Harwin, who is a student of politics and political systems. The Greens might not support the Government because it is not worth supporting, but that does not mean that we should support the Opposition, which also might not be worth supporting. Opposition members forget that there is the exhaustion option.
Funding should be directed to investment in water conservation and reclamation programs and away from the expansion of water supply infrastructure such as dams. Such programs should include installation of water efficiency devices and landscaping, leasing and rebate incentives, price reform, on-site water harvesting and reuse, and community education and consultation programs. There is a great need for water demand management. Significant amounts of water can be saved each year while still allowing the community to enjoy the same quality of life.
In many circumstances demand reduction can be the cheapest and most reliable way to reduce water consumption. Encouraging the public to use water-efficient products is a significant step towards better demand management. The Greens applaud the Minister for noting this issue but in itself it is not enough. There must be a major shift in focus from practices such as deep pumping and water extraction to recycling of effluent for non-drinking purposes.
People should be encouraged to install dry composting systems and on-site grey water systems technology, where appropriate. People should also be encouraged more to install water tanks. I manage two composting toilets on my property, which would probably achieve a 10-star rating. That involves very simple technology. I have suggested this technology on previous occasions in this House and on each occasion I was howled down as an extremist. Nevertheless, the system is very simple.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: How do you manage them?
Mr IAN COHEN: I put sawdust in them and clean them out every six months. That is what I mean by management. They need a bit of hands-on management.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Hands on?
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What about a shovel?
Mr IAN COHEN: A shovel is a good idea. All I hear from members of The Nationals and the Opposition is, "I have not done this so I cannot speak about it." Well, I have done it and I can speak about it, and today I am talking about dry systems. Obviously those who implement such a system should receive a huge subsidy. This decentralised system encourages local employment and it is a system that works. I know that Opposition members will say, "Keep quiet", because they do not understand the issue. It is incredibly important to identify creative ways of reducing water use in the New South Wales domestic system. The simple, cheap methods that I have described work. I suggest that we reintroduce the great Australian outhouse. Renters could put them on wheels and take their toilets with them when they move.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Carry your own hole!
Mr IAN COHEN: Absolutely. I am encouraged by the down-to-earth conservation theology of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. We should also encourage the widespread installation of water tanks to catch rain run-off. It is interesting to note that Waste Services NSW is not seeking to do away with ocean outfalls altogether. When there is heavy rain in the city the overflow should go to the ocean outfalls. Nevertheless, during dry spells people could use both rainwater and grey water to flush the toilet, water their gardens, wash their cars and so on.
The current water allocation regime has caused a conflict between the needs of extractive users and the environment. In October 2004 Bob Carr announced that Sydney's dams could be topped up from the Shoalhaven River. Taking water from the Shoalhaven risks blocking its tidal entrances and increasing salinity. Algal blooms and other problems have proliferated in the Hawkesbury as a result of water extraction, and increasing extraction from the Shoalhaven River could produce similar problems. Moreover, extraction is still reliant on rainfall but in this case it is rainfall in the Shoalhaven rather than in the Sydney catchments. Sydney Water argues that under its new plan it will extract water after heavy rainfall when the river level is high. But then the river system might not receive the flushing it needs to remain healthy. That is a critical point. Furthermore, the cost of pumping a large amount of water across catchment areas is extremely prohibitive.
In October last year Bob Carr announced plans to spend $4 million on drilling for underground sources of water. But the effects of extracting vast amounts of bore water have not been investigated and could disturb the ecosystems that rely on this water. The long-term viability of groundwater recharge beds is threatened by inappropriate land use and overly exploitative irrigation practices. I would like to think the New South Wales Government will note what is happening in Western Australia, where there are major problems with bore water. In Western Australia for generations groundwater has been extracted for garden use but lower rainfall is causing major problems, particularly around Perth, where the long-term water supply may be in jeopardy. We are talking about the future viability of our water supply and about establishing systems that will allow our society to balance its water use. There is a fear that our water supply will be over-exploited, particularly in light of the continued inappropriate use of sewage effluent.
I recently attended a forum hosted by the Shoalhaven Greens. The Hon. Don Harwin also referred to this forum. Several local members of Parliament, councillors and 120 oyster farmers, fishers, tourism operators, canoeists and other river users attended that forum. We heard the sad story of a tourism operator who is selling his canoes cheaply because his canoe trip business has disappeared. The water levels in the river where he takes canoeists are too low—rocks are protruding above the surface—and he cannot continue to operate. That is just one more innovative young tourism operator who is going to the wall. If an eco tourism activity is being impacted to that extent, one can only imagine what is happening to the ecosystem in that area.
All speakers at the forum and contributors from the floor expressed strong concerns about the likely damaging effects of the Government's inter-basin water transfer proposals. Councillor John Finkernagel said that he did not want the Shoalhaven River to end up with algal blooms and other problems that are present in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system after water extractions for Sydney's water supply. John Tate from Riverwatch claims that the current Shoalhaven River flow of 90 megalitres per day is not adequate to maintain the health of the river. Pater Stanton from the Lake Yarrunga Task Force argued that the maximum compromise between the needs of the Shoalhaven River and its users and Sydney's water needs should be a draw down at Tallowa Dam of no more than one metre, with no pumping in the first three days after flooding rains so that the river can receive the flush it needs.
Speakers from the floor expressed strong dissatisfaction about the lack of comprehensive community consultation and pushed for that to occur. In line with my promise on the night, I am trying to organise for representatives of the Shoalhaven to meet the Minister for Energy and Utilities to discuss these matters.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Don't bring John Finkernagel. He voted for the water plan in council and then came to your forum and said something completely different.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the Hon. Don Harwin's interjection and take note of his wise advice. John van der Merwe of Services Sydney Pty Ltd claimed that water transfer was so expensive it made more sustainable alternatives and water management options competitive. He advocated major sewage re-treatment by his company that would return water to rivers for environmental flow and agricultural use. More than 200 people attended the meeting, which was held on a Friday night. On 22 October 2004 Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre appeared on Stateline and said:
We do think it's wrong to have these inter-basin transfers and as a result deprive the Shoalhaven of important flood flows which do have ecological purposes.
It's not as if the river is always at one single level of water flow.
We need the peaks and troughs … the Australian environment requires for a healthy ecology and rivers.
Quentin Dempster then questioned the Minister in the following terms:
But if it doesn't rain in the Shoalhaven, where are we?
The Minister replied:
But you've got to look at it in the long term. When there is rain and excess flows we will be able to harvest it.
Jeff Angel then pointed out:
It doesn't secure the water supply because it depends on rain.
This debate has been going on for a long time. Although the Government has stepped back from the proposed Welcome Reef Dam on the Shoalhaven, we are still trying to address water-guzzling practices in Sydney. Dams are not the way to go; we must change the culture of water use and the attitudes of water users in Sydney. We should consider introducing water usage base levels, and if industrial or private users exceed those levels they should be charged for their extra usage. Frugal users, who install water tanks and conserve water, should receive water credits. That is an important incentive. We should credit minimal water users in our community so that they derive some benefit from taking the trouble and going to the expense of installing water tanks and using freshwater carefully. During the drought I have heard many stories about people collecting bath and shower water in buckets to use on their gardens.
Australians are very resourceful when dealing with these situations. It is important that the Government promotes further research and development of advanced wastewater recycling technology such as ozonolysis, membrane filtration and reverse osmosis. It should also encourage on-site and locally based waste water treatment and reuse where applicable. The Minister refuses to accept but I recommend the 10-star composting toilets. I understand that he is tied into being popular when elections come along and he does not want to sound like a crazy person recommending something outside the realms of what he believes is acceptable.
I support the bill. It is one small aspect of a major campaign that has been ongoing for many years. I hope that the Minister looks at all the different methods of water efficiency in our society and gives due consideration to the perspectives of Services Sydney Pty Ltd in relation to allowing maximum recycling of wastewater. It would have the dual impact of reducing the use of ocean outfalls—reducing the pollutant that is going into the ailing marine environment for that particular product—and reusing that product inland as part of a productive reuse program. We should embark on a twenty-first century resolution to the massive problems that are affecting our waterways—the Shoalhaven River in one respect, the Nepean and Hawkesbury rivers systems in another—which have suffered from very well advertised problems in recent times.
I hope the Minister directs Sydney Water and is not directed by Sydney Water, as previous Ministers have been for a very long time. As a result, real dinosaur technology has been continued, particularly in the transfer of water between catchments and in the end-of-pipe solutions that are not appropriate for the twenty-first century. Having said that, the Greens support this modest initiative of labelling various appliances to help educate people about the importance of water usage. They will learn that the flushing of toilets is part of a massive misuse of water in our society. I hope that the labelling will have the manyfold impact of not only saving water but making people far more mindful of how they use their water. I hope, as I have suggested, that Parliament House, which has great potential for water savings, and other government buildings are audited to reduce the use of water. The Greens support this legislation.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.33 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Bill, which gives effect in this State to a nationally consistent water efficiency labelling and standard scheme. In order to fulfil this purpose the bill applies the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 of the Commonwealth as a law of New South Wales. This bill also makes provision to help ensure that the Commonwealth Act and the applied law of this State are administered on a uniform basis by the Commonwealth as if they constituted a single law of the Commonwealth. The Christian Democratic Party commend the bill to the House.
As has been pointed out by Mr Ian Cohen, this nation is facing a number of desperate water supply and reticulation problems. The international community is also facing a water crisis. Water is deemed to be scarce when supply for personal use is less than 1,000 cubic metres per person per year. The Middle East is the most concentrated region; there are predictions that water—not oil—will be at the centre of any future Middle East wars. We have already seen conflict between Jordan and Israel over the one single source of fresh water to both those countries. Twenty-six countries with a total population in the Middle East of 232 million people already face water scarcity. The Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Koichiro Matsuura, says the average supply of water worldwide per person is expected to drop by a third over the next 20 years. The United Nations estimates that if present water consumption trends continue, in less than 25 years five billion people will be living in areas where it will be virtually impossible or difficult to meet the very basic water needs for sanitation, cooking and drinking. Water resources will steadily decline because of expected climate change, pollution and population growth.
A noticeable trend is that, as time passes, water supply is decreasing and demand for water is increasing. Thus, at a national level, from 1985 to 1997 total water use in Australia increased by 65 per cent. Use for irrigation in that time grew by 76 per cent, urban/industrial consumption increased by 55 per cent and rural use grew only by 2 per cent. Obviously, such increases must meet the limit of supply at some stage. Severe drought affects some part of Australia about once every 18 years, with intervals between severe droughts varying from 4 to 38 years. Australia, being one of the driest countries on earth, will not be able to escape the pressure of an increasing population and a finite supply of water. Already Sydney is using 106 per cent of the annual sustainable yield of its water supplies.
In the Sydney Water service area, which retails an average of 1,700 million litres of water per day to a population of 4.15 million people, the residential sector is the biggest user of water—61 per cent of all water supply is used by residents in their homes. This includes 825 litres per day for single dwellings, 495 litres per day for units and apartments, including outdoor water usage and outdoor water usage is about 27.3 per cent of this and showers 24.3 per cent. The safe yield of Sydney's drinking water storages is 600,000 megalitres per year. Sydney's population of approximately 4.2 million people used 635,000 megalitres of water in 2002-2003. Sydney's water consumption has been above the safe yield for the past three years and for six of the past ten years. Daily per capita water use was 416 litres in 2002-2003.
Average residential consumption is 245 kilolitres per year, with 285 kilolitres per year in houses and 179 kilolitres per year for residents in units or flats. Sydney's population is expected to increase to 4.5 million people by 2011 and almost 4.9 million by 2021. Sydney Water notes that a shortfall will be created between supply capacity of about 540,000 megalitres per year. The Sydney water catchment has been in drought for close to three years now. The Hawkesbury-Nepean River Management Forum noted security of supply problems in Wollongong and Nowra. We have already heard from previous speakers about the Shoalhaven River. The initiatives underlying this bill, as exemplified in the national legislation, are a great step in the right direction to save water and help the environment. They are a good step, albeit only a very small one. Nonetheless, great things can be achieved by taking small and consistent steps.
The bill seeks to facilitate a system which will provide consumers with the ability to make environmentally friendly and sound decisions. Specifically, this bill seeks to implement an efficiency labelling and standards scheme for water appliances known as Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards [WELS]. The WELS scheme will involve the introduction of national mandatory water efficiency labelling and minimum performance standards for domestic water-using devices. The measures established in the WELS scheme hope to reduce water consumption in New South Wales by almost 29 billion litres annually. This translates to a net savings to New South Wales consumers of about $225 million over 18 years. This is not the answer, or even one of the answers, but it is part of one of the answers. WELS is a national initiative.
The Commonwealth developed, in consultation with the States and Territories, legislation for its implementation. In fact, the Commonwealth's Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Bill 2004 was passed by the Senate on 8 February 2005 and is awaiting assent. In order to ensure that this legislation is effective at a State and Territory level, each State and Territory will introduce legislation that mirrors the Commonwealth legislation. A Commonwealth Water Efficiency Labelling Regulator will be set up to register products, ensure compliance and enforce the scheme. Manufacturers will fund 90 per cent of the cost of administering the scheme through registration fees collected from the registration of water appliances. As the scheme is a Commonwealth initiative, the cost to New South Wales has been estimated at approximately $15,000 annually.
The scheme will require that manufacturers label appliances with relative water efficiency information. The water-using products covered by WELS initially will include such things as showerheads, washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, taps, flow regulators and urinals. These particular products were identified for inclusion in the scheme following an initial strategic study conducted in 2003 by some consultants for the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Additional products such as evaporative cooling units, water heating and storage units can be brought into the scheme over time, subject to cost-benefit analysis and public consultation. Once a product is registered under the scheme, compliance with the scheme will be obligatory.
The scheme will institute minimum standards for toilets. One of the consequences of this is that the importation of inefficient toilets will be prevented. However, it is not envisaged that this will impact negatively on Australian manufacturers, because they are already subject to a plumbing standard limiting production to efficient dual flush systems. It has been suggested that the application of minimum standards to any additional products would be subject to the evaluation of the success of mandatory labelling and would require cost-benefit analysis and public consultation. Further, it has been noted that minimum standards may not be required if the market responds positively to labelling and causes the market for inefficient products to shrink.
One area of focus for the Federal Department of the Environment and Heritage is the National Urban Water Efficiency Program. WELS falls under that program. The web site for the program indicates that WELS "is drawing upon the experience of the mandatory energy efficiency labelling system in place across Australia, which has seen an energy efficiency improvement for refrigerators and freezers of 50 per cent over a 13-year period, and projected improvements of 70 per cent over 25 years". These are amazing projections, and it is suggested that similar improvements may be possible for some water-using products over time.
Preventative measures are being established to minimise non-compliance. The Commonwealth Regulator will have discretion to resolve non-compliance without resorting to enforcement action by doing such things as conducting routine inspections and performance feedback seminars and web site guides. Breaches of registration, labelling or performance of products can attract a fine of 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units if dealt with by a court. A six months imprisonment penalty can be applied for failure to provide documents when appearing before an inspector.
In recent years, my wife and I have installed two large tanks, one of 20,000 gallons and one of 1,500 gallons, and connected them to our home. We have replaced all of the guttering so that we might more effectively collect all rainwater. We recycle all grey water and use it on the gardens. We pump from a reticulating sump tank all runoff from our land to the gardens. We have replaced all outlet taps and showerheads. We self-manage, with council permission, our toilet system, with our gardens benefiting from 90 per cent soakage. In spite of drought, our family home is now self-sufficient in water, even though recently, under council instructions, we have had to connect to a town supply, at a cost of some $15,000.
In my strong opinion, one of the most powerful ways in which we might bring about change to assist the environment is to vote with the almighty dollar. In this context, many of us have the power to influence the future of our environment. By supporting products that are creative, with the intention of mitigating risks to the environment, we create a demand for those products. Given the way that the economy works, if supply generally increases to meet the demand for water-friendly products, this will lead to an increase in the production of those products and a consequent decrease in inefficient products and the total use of water. Hopefully, people will vote for the environment by choosing environmentally friendly products. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.44 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and for their support of the bill. I will respond to the assertion by the Hon. Don Harwin that the Carr Government continues to disregard the opportunities for large-scale water recycling in New South Wales and that, as with the water efficiency labelling scheme [WELS], large-scale water recycling remains the strategy championed by the Coalition only. Since the Coalition lost government, water recycling in Sydney has increased from 6.2 billion litres a year to 14 billion litres a year. In that time, major water recycling schemes have been implemented at Rouse Hill and Sydney Olympic Park. These projects were the first residential water recycling schemes in Australia. Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Canberra are considering such projects for their States.
In addition, the New South Wales Government's Metropolitan Water Plan includes major water recycling works. They include BlueScope Steel, Liverpool golf course, and Hoxton Park and Rouse Hill stage two new residential release areas, which together comprise eight billion litres of water a year. The Government is undertaking detailed planning of a large-scale water recycling system for western Sydney, where approximately 80 billion litres will be recycled for use in residential properties, in urban and agricultural irrigation, and to provide environmental flows. This will create the largest water recycling scheme in Australia—eight times larger than the current largest scheme, the Virginia water recycling scheme in South Australia. The Government has established a working group to investigate a new scheme at Kurnell to serve industries including Caltex, Continental Carbon and others in the Botany Bay area, utilising the water from the Orica ground water treatment plant. These water recycling initiatives are expected to increase the level of recycling from the current 2.5 per cent to between 15 and 20 per cent over the next 25 years.
Far from the Coalition being the champions of water recycling, the New South Wales Labor Government is doing 10 times more for water recycling. The Hon. Don Harwin pointed to the Shoalhaven water recycling scheme as the type of scheme the Government should be implementing. In fact, the Shoalhaven water recycling scheme was a joint partnership between the State Government and the council.
The Hon. Don Harwin: And the Commonwealth Government.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I acknowledge the Commonwealth's support. This is certainly a partnership of three levels of government.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Absolutely!
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: Large-scale water recycling is not a strategy that is being championed by the Coalition alone. The State Government contributed $25 million of the $69 million to the project, as well as policy and technical advice. The Shoalhaven water recycling scheme recycles about four billion litres of water each year. The Metropolitan Water Plan proposes to take water from the Shoalhaven while it is at high flow. This is water that is currently being lost. Like recycling, the water efficiency initiatives, including WELS, constitute an important part of the New South Wales Government's Metropolitan Water Plan. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:36 : Update this page