- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 12 October 2005
Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 41 of 52
| Next Item »
Page: 18416
Second Reading
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.43 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave not granted.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Madam Deputy-President, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
[Quorum formed.]
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I refer honourable members to the second reading speech of the Minister in the other place.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [7.46 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill, for several reasons. We have reservations about the method used for determining the level of charges, the lack of detail and the reliance on regulation in the proposed legislation. We oppose the introduction of a new tax by the highest-taxing State Government in Australia. This Government is once again resorting to the time-honoured tradition of cost-shifting State responsibilities to local government. The Opposition is not happy about that and we are particularly not happy that in this case it will result in a new tax.
The bill proposes to empower local councils to impose a stormwater management service charge of up to $25 per household and $100 per business annually. By declaring that charge optional and making the amount unfixed subject to a cap, the Government has assiduously tried to avoid the new charge being labelled a tax. However, as revenue from the levy will not be included in a council's general income and therefore will not be subject to rate pegging, one is hard pressed to imagine that any council will eschew the opportunity to raise additional funds. Thus, in practical terms the stormwater management charge will be a new direct tax on households and businesses across New South Wales.
Following the Treasurer's admission that the budget is in deficit, it comes as no great surprise to learn that the Government is trying to introduce such a levy. After wasting and mishandling the State's finances, the Government is now trying to fund long-neglected infrastructure maintenance by using local councils to collect a new tax from New South Wales residents and businesses. This new charge is just another sign of this tired old Labor Government's financial mismanagement.
This bill is symptomatic of the Government's unwillingness to seriously explore responsible solutions to the problem of our metropolitan water supply shortage. Stormwater harvesting can play a valuable role in this respect. Yet the Government is seeking to shift the burden of funding stormwater management directly onto the people of New South Wales by way of a new tax, while at the same time it is pushing ahead with a desalination plant at Kurnell that is not in the financial and environmental interests of our state.
The Opposition has repeatedly called for the Government to pursue water recycling and stormwater harvesting strategies to safeguard Sydney's water supply needs into the future. Less than 3 per cent of water consumed in Sydney is currently recycled, making the city one of the worst water recyclers in Australia. By contrast, Adelaide recycles almost 20 per cent of its water, and Melbourne recycles 11 per cent. In addition, stormwater harvesting has the potential to deliver Sydney a further 360 billion litres each year. This is a significant resource that the State Government is neglecting to utilise.
Instead of taking action on stormwater use and water reuse strategies, or demonstrating any commitment to pursue them in meaningful ways, the Government remains committed to the development of a costly desalination plant that is unwanted by residents of the Sutherland shire and will exact a significant toll from the people of New South Wales, both fiscally and environmentally, for relatively little benefit. Bob Carr's desalination plant—his parting gift to the people of New South Wales—will deliver 180 million litres a year, half the amount that it is estimated could be harvested from stormwater. The plant will cost $2 billion to construct and will produce 945,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide waste annually—the equivalent of an additional 220,000 motor vehicles on our roads. And the plant's energy demands will only further burden the struggling electricity supply that is forecast will not meet our State's consumption demands in 2008-09 because of a lack of investment by the State Government over the past decade.
Rather than place the burden of funding stormwater management directly onto the shoulders of residents and businesses at a local government level, the State Government should shelve its impractical, costly, low-yield and environmentally damaging desalination plant and redirect funds into water recycling and stormwater harvesting projects. It is time the Government turned its attention to alternative solutions and showed some commitment to reuse strategies. This is an ideal opportunity, in debate on a bill that deals with stormwater, to raise concerns about this Government, which has its direction on stormwater completely wrong.
Unfortunately, the Government has chosen to effectively abandon the only stormwater management scheme it was operating—the Stormwater Trust Fund. Recommended in the report of the Waterways Advisory Panel in May 1997, administered by the Environment Protection Authority, and initially at least financed to the tune of $60 million, the Stormwater Trust was designed to help local councils pilot innovation in stormwater management and to undertake remedial maintenance work. The benefit of having stormwater management handled at a local government level was recognised under the scheme. However, this approach also allowed for an appropriate level of co-ordination and oversight through the grants approval process. The trust facilitated the introduction of new technologies that were developed, and partnerships between local government and both public authorities and the private sector were encouraged.
A former Minister for the Environment, the honourable member for Wentworthville, explained at an estimates committee hearing in 1998 that the trust was "one of the key measures introduced to support local government to reduce stormwater pollution" and was part of the Government's "whole-of-government approach to stormwater management". My colleague the honourable member for Myall Lakes, the shadow Minister for Local Government, detailed in a speech on this bill in the other place the way in which the Stormwater Trust worked. It is worth reading. Of course, the Stormwater Trust was far from perfect as an approach but it was at least something. Frankly, we need to be doing much more with stormwater harvesting. But even the very little that this Government did has now gone.
As the Government's finances plummeted into the red, the trust was scrapped in the April 2004 mini-budget. Rather than addressing its own mismanagement issues or cutting its oversized public service, the Government responded to the looming debt burden by cutting what was an effective and successful program that was directly benefiting the community and protecting our environment. In place of the Stormwater Trust Fund the Government has presented this serious step backwards, that is, the stormwater levy legislation. The comparison between what has been abandoned and what is now promised is not flattering. The trust was an effective scheme as far as it went, and no-one pretends that it was comprehensive or went as far as a State government should have gone in terms of stormwater harvesting. Nevertheless, it provided State funds to local councils for the management and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure, and that enabled projects to be originated and driven at a local level while subject to co-ordination and oversight regionally.
The scheme proposed in this bill establishes a new tax on our State's residents and business operators for stormwater management projects that are undertaken locally without regard for any regional co-ordination, to which I will refer later. This is certainly not a desirable outcome. The Government should abandon its unrealistic ideas about a desalination plant and divert the associated funds back into a comprehensive approach to stormwater reharvesting that may well include a revival of the Stormwater Trust Fund and certainly would include other recycling and reuse projects as part of a holistic solution to Sydney's water supply problems. The Government should act responsibly in regard to our water needs, our environment and our finances, rather than expect the people and businesses of New South Wales to bail it out of its budget deficit through the introduction of new taxes.
In turning to the bill and some of its specific provisions I place on the record several reservations that the Opposition has about the bill and the scheme it proposes. According to the bill, councils will be empowered to levy the proposed stormwater charges upon each parcel of rateable land. However, in his second reading speech the Minister stated that the charge will be capped at $25 per average residential block, and in the briefing note he circulated to the shadow Minister—and, I think, to the crossbench as well—he indicated that the charge would be applied per household.
There are substantial differences between the charge being levied per household or per block. For example, a residential block may have 10 units on it. If the charge were levied per block, the body corporate would be required to pay the council the $25 charge. If the charge were applied per household, however, the property would yield $250 to council. This appears to be an unfair impost and an unjustified windfall for councils since the residential block with 10 units would likely contribute the same level of stormwater runoff as the adjoining residential block with a single home. I imagine some of my colleagues and friends who serve on coastal councils might be very happy about that.
What of those recent residential developments into which strategic rainwater and stormwater measures have already been incorporated? Will those blocks or households be exempt? The manner in which the fee is to be applied needs to be clearly spelled out and the Minister needs to resolve the confusion he has created by clarifying this matter in his reply. Of course, this confusion may well have been avoided if a greater degree of detail had been included in the bill. This tired old Labor Government does not have a strong record when it comes to transparency. Once again pertinent detail has been omitted, with vague references to regulations included instead. The real reason, of course, for recourse to regulation is to allow this new tax to be increased quickly and frequently.
The Local Government and Shires Associations have asked to be fully involved with the Department of Local Government in the drafting of the regulation, and this certainly must occur. The Local Government and Shires Associations have highlighted that although there have been ongoing discussions over the past 5 to 10 years on the subject matter of this bill, there were no negotiations in the immediate lead-up to its tabling, according to my advice from the shadow minister in another place. This lack of close consultation with a key stakeholder is not appropriate and further demonstrates the Government's poor handling of this matter.
The lack of detailed consultation at the final stage with the Local Government and Shires Associations about the specifics of the bill appears to be in sharp contrast with the series of independent surveys concerning the willingness to pay, which apparently were conducted. These opinion surveys allegedly found a strong willingness to pay $25 per annum for improvements in stormwater management. As it appears the Government has introduced this bill on the strength of these surveys, the Opposition believes it would be appropriate for the Government to reveal who carried out the surveys and what questions were asked, and to detail the statistical results. It would be appropriate if the Minister did that in his response to the debate.
Such disclosure is all the more pertinent given that the upper limits of $25 for residential properties and $100 for commercial properties appear to have been determined without relevant criteria or rationale. This arbitrary approach to the setting of charges is of concern to the Opposition and also to the Local Government and Shires Associations. Make no mistake, individual councils need to spend very significant amounts on ageing infrastructure, which certainly needs to be renewed. An arbitrary approach to setting the fees without full involvement from the associations is not appropriate.
I am aware of the situation in, for example, Woollahra Council. There are 105 kilometres of pipes and drains and 4,156 stormwater pits in what is, I think most people would readily concede, geographically at least, one of the smallest local government areas in metropolitan Sydney. To conduct investigations to determine priority works in renewing stormwater infrastructure and to carry out those that have immediate priority was estimated to cost $1.8 million. We are talking about very significant sums of money to renew infrastructure. An arbitrary approach to the setting of charges is a problem.
The Opposition is also concerned that the bill proposes that the Department of Housing and the Aboriginal Housing Company be exempt from paying this levy. This aspect of the legislation highlights the cost-shifting nature of the bill. Under the Government's proposal, in local government areas where there are department or company holdings the cost of stormwater management services relating to those parcels of land will be completely transferred to the local government area's other ratepayers. That is blatantly unfair and the Government should pay a fee to the relevant councils on a pro rata basis for the number of Department of Housing properties in that local government area.
The final aspect of the proposed legislation that I wish to raise relates to the level of co-ordination at a regional or catchment level. When the Stormwater Trust Fund was in operation the allocation of grants could be used to co-ordinate stormwater projects identified by local councils. Under the scheme proposed in this bill, local councils will be required to consult their communities about whether the charge should be levied and about how any revenue will be spent. Councils will also be required to report to the community on how the charge was used each year. Obviously councils are well placed to identify the stormwater management needs in their local area and can clearly take some responsibility for the necessary works.
We do, however, have concerns about the absence of co-ordination at a regional or catchment level, which was a strength of the Stormwater Trust Fund scheme. A case in point is the Cooks River, which has long been plagued by stormwater pollution, among other forms of pollution. Residents along the river have long been aware that effective solutions to the problem depend on a co-ordinated approach along the entirety of the river's catchment area involving all three tiers of government. The Cooks River is impacted by stormwater activities in numerous local government areas, including Canterbury, Strathfield, Burwood, Ashfield, Marrickville and Rockdale. While the councils in each of these areas want the cleanliness of the river addressed, the solution to the stormwater pollution in the Cooks River will be most effectively and efficiently achieved through an integrated whole-of-catchment approach, giving the lead to the dozen local councils involved.
In his second reading speech the Minister stated that the Government recognises that stormwater now needs to be managed in an integrated manner, yet this bill is a negation of this stated aspiration. Under the provisions of the bill, it is not clear that there is any enhancement to the Government's capacity to ensure that local councils co-ordinate their stormwater management activities. I am concerned that the bill could undermine the kind of integrated approach to stormwater management that the Government is ostensibly hoping to encourage. I note, for example, that this concern is held by a large number of environmental advocacy groups and has been raised with a number of members of this House by the environment liaison officer. I was one of the recipients of a fax yesterday that raised a number of issues but in particular highlighted as the first point the fact that they were concerned that "a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach from State Government is needed" and that they thought this bill was not the best way of doing that. I will quote briefly from their letter.
Stormwater management and reuse are important elements of effectively dealing with water supply issues in urban areas. We note that while local government is an appropriate partner to deal with these issues, there must be overall co-ordination from State Government for integrated water management to ensure efficient use of the funds. This would involve co-ordination between all state government bodies, local governments, Catchment Management Authorities, other catchment bodies and water corporations.
The letter shows that there is wide concern in the environment movement that this new approach to stormwater may lead to a less co-ordinated approach to stormwater pollution. That should give members of the crossbench cause to question whether they are really doing the right thing in lending their support to the bill. Given that the Government is on the wrong track with metropolitan Sydney's water needs and how to effectively increase the amount of water recycled and come up with a comprehensive stormwater harvesting strategy, I seriously question how this approach advances that at all. The Opposition will oppose the bill outright because it lacks detail, it has significant flaws, and it represents a major backward step in stormwater management in our State. The Stormwater Trust Fund was not perfect, but now we have a new tax, a desalination plant and no plans for harvesting our stormwater to deal with Sydney's water needs. The bill is not in the best interests of our State. The Opposition will vote against it.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.11 p.m.]: I have grave reservations about the bill. The Government is pushing the cost of stormwater onto local councils on the basis of a study that was revealed in the briefing notes to the crossbench that more or less said that people are willing to pay $25 to $40 a year to fix the stormwater problem. The Government is being driven by the knowledge that people will accept that tax. It talks about communication and new initiatives, but words are cheap. It talks about lofty visions, but it does venal things. This is fundamentally a cost shift to local councils because the Government thinks it will be more acceptable for local councils.
Everybody knows that local councils, suffering under a rate cap that bears no relation to their costs, would be pathetically grateful for whatever extra money they can get, particularly if they have to dig up some roads and stormwater drains to fix failing infrastructure that is reaching the end of its life because of concrete cancer. As Western Sydney has developed, the upstream has developed and the run-off rates are higher, which means that the water that fell on the catchments—there are still catchments, even though they are urbanised—runs off in higher areas. The water more quickly reaches the points downstream in older areas, which means that the volume is greater and, therefore, the culverts and channels that were designed for the run-off in the more western parts of the city were not developed and are now inadequate in volume.
Many of the renewals and augmentations are needed close to the mouth of the stormwater channels. The councils that will pay for them are not those whose calculations of the run-off rates, or non-retention of the water that falls, are passed onto the next council downstream. If ever there were a case of inequity of one council paying for another council's development, this would have to be it. This is a classic case of a government with an overall view stepping in to ensure equity. But the bill does not ensure equity between councils. It pushes the problem to local councils. The Government has no money—it has admitted it is in deficit—but it wants to fix stormwater so it palms off the problem to the lower tier of government. It does not matter that it has pushed it to the wrong council.
The Government produces rhetoric about plans, approvals and schemes, but it has no evidence to back it up. To the contrary, while it is dealing with the stormwater problem—replacing drains and augmenting culverts—it is quarantining, borrowing or looking for a public-private partnership [PPP] to develop a desalination plant for $2 billion. Given the extraordinary ineptitude of the Government's ability to deal with private sector partners—we are fleeced each time—the regulations stop us from saving any water lest the private sector partner with the $2 billion PPP fails to make enough money from desalinating enough water. Will that be the performance contract to ensure that a lot of water is desalinated and we are not left with a complete white elephant? It is another unsuitable scenario.
If the Government has $2 billion to fix Sydney's water problem it should not slough off stormwater, which it says is almost enough for our total consumption. It should reuse and recycle water. Some of the water run-off is from roofs and could be captured in rainwater tanks. Some of it is from paving, streets and roads, which would be a little more contaminated. But figures from the water authorities show that it is 2.2 times more expensive to desalinate water than it is to purify or treat sewage, which is one step further contaminated than stormwater. The Government has put the absurd proposition that people will not accept treated sewage, therefore we have to have a desalination plant.
It is ridiculous to think that we will pay $2 billion because we cannot change our mindset that water cannot be purified. It is well known that astronauts in space reuse water. It is also well known that if a town upstream discharges into the river and the next town downstream takes water out of that river, the same water is being treated on the way through. It is wrong to say that the people of Sydney would not accept treated water and that we therefore have to desalinate water at 2.2 times the cost and ignore the Malabar sewage treatment plant and the vacant land between it and the Anzac Rifle Range, which would be admirably suitable for the treatment of water. A desalination plant at Kurnell peninsula would harm the environment.
It is also well known that the canal from Warragamba Dam to Pipe Head at Guildford goes past Prospect reservoir, which holds about three days of water for Sydney. It has been said that the main function of Prospect reservoir is to contaminate the water because it comes from Warragamba quite clean and could go directly to Pipe Head. The fact that it is in Prospect reservoir for three days is convenient should there be a problem with the canal from Warragamba to Guildford, but it is not necessary. It has been said that the main problem with Prospect reservoir is that it is fairly shallow and birds pooh in it, thus increasing the phosphate, which means that more bacteria can grow in Sydney's water.
It is quite possible to pump water into Prospect reservoir and treat it. The question is: at what stage would it be put there? Would it be treated and then pumped to Prospect reservoir? Or, the most radical solution, would it be pumped as grey water and taken out again? I am not sure. These are all possibilities to collect water. We have $2 billion to fix Sydney's water. If we have $2 billion to build a desalination plant we will let Sydney waste its water and recycle as little as it does now. But we will not think about that because it is in a separate compartment. That is not any sort of solution.
This Government basically is attempting to hide its embarrassment with a fig leaf by substituting a bit of rhetoric about forecasting when it does not have any plans. Where are the serious plans for Sydney's water resources? Can the Government point to any serious discussion on this issue? I acknowledge that an inquiry is taking place, but this legislation was presented before the inquiry commenced. If the inquiry is doing good work, why is this legislation before the Parliament? Why is the Government junking stormwater? Why is the Government shifting costs? Why is this Government assuming that stormwater should just go straight out to sea? Why is the Government not giving any thought to the utilisation of stormwater? This legislation represents the Government's usual style of cobbling together some rubbish wrapped in rhetoric to create some vague impression of respectability in the vain hope that members of this House will pass the bill.
I have received recommendations from environmental liaison officers to pass the bill, but they have pointed out all the bill's flaws. I suppose they are pleased that funding is being directed to doing something about stormwater and the repair of infrastructure, and I suppose that represents a responsible approach, albeit limited. However, the problems pointed out in their letter indicate that this bill is simply not worth supporting. The Government should go back to the drawing board, work out a proper plan for Sydney's water resources and bring that before the House. This bill represents nonsense that has been taken too far. It will take a great deal of persuasion to convince me to support the type of nonsensical proposal represented by this bill.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.20 p.m.]: The Greens congratulate the Government on recognising that stormwater capturing and reuse can play an important role in addressing the water crisis in New South Wales, but this bill does not go far enough. The addition of a $25 per year levy on each household and a slightly higher levy on rate-paying businesses will not provide the necessary funds to enable a comprehensive stormwater reuse system to be constructed. At best the funding will provide some councils—larger councils with high numbers of ratepayers—with funds to build one-off showcase projects. While one-off projects are commendable, they will not significantly reduce demand on the Warragamba Dam.
The story of water management in New South Wales is sad and full of episodes of wastefulness, and it is also well known. The manifestations of that sad story range from people in Goulburn standing in buckets of water to bathe and farmers across the State facing the water crisis, to water restrictions that apply in Sydney. The rate at which water is used in New South Wales is far from sustainable. Anyone who has stood on the banks of the once mighty Murray River or Darling River in recent years could not help but be struck by how grossly mismanaged our water systems are. Some of the State's biggest rivers have been reduced to muddy gutters. The irresponsible use of water has degraded our natural environment on a massive scale and is now undermining the economic sustainability of many rural communities. In Sydney the rate of water use in urban areas is shameful.
In most parts of the United States of America it has been illegal since 1994 to use a shower head that uses more than nine litres of water per minute. Shower heads that discharge up to 30 litres of water per minute can still be purchased in Sydney, and dual flush toilets, which are an excellent water-saving device, are still voluntary. In Sydney's ageing system of crumbling pipes, 10 per cent of the city's water is being lost. Dam levels are hovering at around 40 per cent full. In spite of all those examples of what could be done, the State Government still refuses to seriously entertain, let alone facilitate or implement, widespread water reuse and recycling.
The Government's response to the water crisis is a massive coal-guzzling desalination plant which will be the largest in the world. Despite describing desalination as bottled electricity, Bob Carr's parting gift to the people of New South Wales was a $2 billion noose around their necks—a desalination plant. Another harebrained scheme that makes no economic or environmental sense is the $680 million plan to raise the dam wall at Tallowa and divert water from the Shoalhaven to Sydney. Raising the Tallowa Dam will threaten fishing and tourism in the area and could worsen flooding in Kangaroo Valley. The river system is already stressed from increased pollution, salinity problems, and the invasion of introduced fish and aquatic plants. The area needs rehabilitation, not further degradation. The capital cost involved in the construction of the dam wall and pipeline to Sydney will add even more to the water bills of Sydney residents.
There is an alternative to desalination and water diversion from the Shoalhaven. Huge savings can be made when people use water more efficiently by switching to triple-A rated white goods and water-efficient shower nozzles in the home, water reuse and reduction strategies in industry, and water billing regimes that give people clear incentives to use less water. These are measures that encourage personal behaviour change in the home and in the workplace. Broadly speaking, they have been embraced by the people of Sydney. Per capita use of water has been decreasing over the past 10 years. In 1992 Sydney residents consumed an average of 506 litres per person per year. By 2004 the consumption rates had fallen to 369 litres per person per year. Consumption was reduced even further as Sydneysiders responded admirably to the water restrictions that were imposed last year. Individual Sydneysiders are eager to do their bit. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, research shows that ratepayers are perfectly willing to pay an additional levy to fund water-saving initiatives that have tangible outcomes.
But there is only so much that individuals can do. Consumers may be doing their bit to reduce demand, but the Government has dropped the ball on the supply side of the arrangement. Only governments and big industry can build large-scale water reuse and recycling infrastructure. The construction of that type of infrastructure is what the Government should have been doing over the past 10 years but, instead, this Government has been sitting on its hands. Approximately twice the volume of water that Sydney uses each year flows out to sea as uncaptured stormwater. Despite that, the Government has consistently refused to invest seriously in stormwater capturing and grey water recycling. Water expert Tony McAlister has been employed by the Queensland Government to conduct a number of studies on water recycling. He stated in his paper "Stormwater Reuse—A Balanced Assessment":
There is a wide range of tried and tested stormwater reuse techniques used around Australia and elsewhere in the world. These include the following:
• aquifer storage and recovery;
• urban lakes;
• wetlands;
• rainwater tanks;
• water sensitive urban design;
• water harvesting;
• industrial reuse; and
• unplanned reuse
Mr McAlister goes on to state:
The benefit of stormwater reuse should need little introduction. If it is possible to replace high quality potable water supplied within a household for certain uses with lesser quality potable, or even non-potable, water, then there are obvious benefits in terms of reducing the potable water usage of a household.
His concluding comments are particularly salient:
The benefits of stormwater reuse discussed in this paper are typically not included in the reticulated water supply or urban land use decision making process, and stormwater reuse is usually discounted out of hand.
That is precisely what this Government has done: Stormwater policy has focused on stormwater as a pollution source, rather than as a water resource that should be captured and used. Against the background of the State Government's inertia, local government has been forging ahead. While the general focus of local government programs has been on treating stormwater as a pollution source, some councils have developed capturing, treatment and reuse facilities. Ku-ring-gai Council has embarked on a $4 million capturing and filtration system that will provide water for local parks and public gardens. The council has already cut mains water consumption by a massive 43 per cent and is expecting a further 10 per cent reduction in the forthcoming one to two years.
If Ku-ring-gai Council can do that, the potential clearly exists for the rest of Sydney to make similar savings, with support and assistance from the State Government In the last financial year the Council of the City of Sydney invested $300,000 in capturing stormwater and is currently exploring a range of filtration and reuse applications as a way of easing the pain of the current water restrictions. Other council initiatives include the building of suburban dams and ponds to capture rainwater for reuse in watering sports grounds, golf courses and parks, and building wetlands to store and purify stormwater.
Numerous councils, funded in part through the Stormwater Trust Fund, have undertaken innovative and effective initiatives and begun the capacity building necessary to move towards large-scale stormwater capture and reuse. The Stormwater Trust Fund was an initiative for which the State Government should be congratulated. Unfortunately, the Greens now condemn the Government for axing that program. The bill is about shifting the cost of stormwater management and the provision of stormwater infrastructure from the State Government to councils and ratepayers. The Government has abandoned the Stormwater Trust Fund and now proposes to allow councils to charge ratepayers a new stormwater levy.
Yet the figure mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech of $25 per household has been criticised by councils as being too small to provide the necessary funds to build adequate infrastructure. As the Hon. Don Harwin pointed out, the lack of clarity as to what will be levied—will it be households or blocks—is another undesirable feature of the bill. I refer to an example I have already mentioned. Ku-ring-gai Council's recycling system cost $4 million. At $25 per household, Ku-ring-gai Council would need 160,000 ratepayers to fund such an investment. The number of ratepayers in Ku-ring-gai is approximately 36,000, meaning that it would take approximately 4½ years to save for that single piece of infrastructure under the Government's proposed levy.
Smaller councils could be saving for up to 10 years to fund a similar stormwater reticulation system. Most councils need multiple water capture and treatment facilities, not just one. Under this bill it would take decades to build the sort of infrastructure necessary to significantly reduce demand on the existing mains water system. The bill is even more short sighted in its failure to require a regional, co-ordinated approach on the part of councils to stormwater management. The Local Government and Shires Association has joined councils in describing this bill as piecemeal and inadequate. Make no mistake: councils are keen and able to take on the task, but they must be funded adequately.
The Greens will move an amendment at the Committee stage that seeks to oblige the Government to put its money where its mouth is and match councils and ratepayers dollar for dollar in any funds raised. The Government would be far better funding councils in a joint initiative to develop a comprehensive water capture and recycling program, rather than wasting $2 billion on a desalination plants that makes no economic or environmental sense, and one which will serve only a small portion of the Sydney community. Water usage charges to pay for that plant are expected to more than double, raising the amount paid per household by an average of $100 per year, possibly more if greenhouse gas emissions and operational costs are taken into account. The plant is expected to increase Sydney's electricity consumption by an additional 2 per cent at a time when the State Government supposedly pursues a greenhouse pollution reduction policy.
The desalination plant proposal flies in the face of sound economic and environmental management. The plant is opposed by the people of Sydney; indeed, it was probably this year's most reviled, ridiculed and denounced proposal until the cross-city tunnel became the focus of public dissatisfaction with the Government. The desalination plant is opposed universally by environment groups, community organisations, councils, the Greens and the Federal Government, which, fortunately will extend the time for submissions on whether the proposed plant at Kurnell requires full assessment under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. Despite the State Government's attempts to use its new powers under the State significant legislation to bypass environmental assessment and community consultation, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act may yet be used to reveal the true cost of this monstrosity.
The Government is the sole supporter of the desalination plant. It is looking for a silver bullet, a technical quick fix, to the current water shortages. Of course, the Government is backed by its developer mates, vying for construction and operation contracts. All three consortia short-listed for the construction of the proposed plans—Freshwater Alliance, Sydney Aquasolutions and Puresolutions—have companies that are or have been major donors to the Australian Labor Party. Companies in those consortia include: John Holland, Veolia Water and United KG, in Freshwater Alliance; Degremont, Australian Water Services, Bovis Lend Lease, Bilfinger Berger, Baulderstone Hornibrook, in Sydney Aquasolutions; and Theiss, Parsons and Brinckerhoff, in Puresolutions. Since 2002 the following companies have donated money to the Australian Labor Party: John Holland, $8,000; Veolia Water, in its former guise as Vivendi, $15,000; Bovis Lend Lease, $27,000—although Bovis Lend Lease must be congratulated for finally adopting a policy of no longer making political donations; Baulderstone Hornibrook, $44,300; and Theiss, $27,500.
Those figures do not include donations from subsidiaries or parent companies, which would amount to many more thousands of dollars. The competing firms, in their attempts to outdo each other in their effort to win this multibillion-dollar contract, have directly contributed $121,800 to the Labor Party's coffers. The desalination plant is not the most cost effective option to meet Sydney's water needs, nor is it in the broader interests of the community or the environment. It is in the commercial interests of large corporations involved in its construction and operation, and in the interests of a lazy Government with little inclination to invest in the long-term interests of the people of New South Wales.
This Government has refused to take grey water recycling seriously and instead has embarked upon expensive and environmentally reckless alternatives, including piping water from the Shoalhaven and constructing the world's biggest desalination plant. Water saving, demand management and stormwater capture and reuse would be a more economically and environmentally responsible option. Councils have demonstrated that they are able and willing to undertake stormwater works, if funded properly. This bill could provide the foundations for a comprehensive grey water reticulation system if the Government were to adequately fund councils. For those reasons the Greens urge members of this House to support the Greens amendment in Committee.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.37 p.m.]: There is no doubt that the urban communities of New South Wales have a problem with stormwater. Having now read the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill and the Minister's second reading speech, the solution to the problem is not contained in the bill that we are debating tonight. Indeed, the more I read the second reading speech the more I saw it as a cobbled together collection of words that, in my view, represent an extraordinarily backward step in any attempt to deal with one of the most significant issues that we face, not only in Sydney but also in other parts of New South Wales. If one were to analyse the second reading speech, one would understand that the problem, on the one hand, is about rain falling on hard surfaces and picking up pollution. On the other hand, we have the problem of flooding. Residents of Sydney might welcome flooding from time to time—it would suggest that we had received some decent rainfalls. However, the bill mixes together two different problems: tackling pollution and preventing flooding.
How does the Government suggest that we do this? The Government suggested that the way forward is to manage this in an integrated way. I fail to understand how giving each council an opportunity to raise a levy to deal with stormwater in urban areas as it sees fit has anything to do with managing stormwater in an integrated way. In fact, that statement is contradictory. I agree with the Government that we need an integrated approach. However, I accept the right of councils in their own areas, where they have an opportunity such as they had in Ku-ring-gai, to give this issue priority. It is nonsense for the Government to suggest on the one hand that the way forward is by adopting an integrated approach and to suggest on the other hand that the way forward is to achieve that through the imposition of a stormwater levy.
Local governments are meant to do that by engaging in consultation processes with their communities. I do not know of many communities that would not be giving support to local councils to raise this additional levy. If we asked people in the community what we should do about this issue to better support Sydney's water supply I am sure everybody would talk about capturing rainwater and stormwater. Everybody talks about the rainwater that is running down the gutters and going out to sea and everyone perceives that as being a problem. Rainwater run-off must be dealt with at a household level through the installation of rainwater tanks. However, at that level the Government would be confronted with a problem. The standard of plumbing in Australia, particularly in New South Wales, is behind the standard in other States.
New South Wales has been slow to adopt up-to-date standards. People can install rainwater tanks, but they have to go through an exhaustive process. They have to ensure that the rainwater does not become combined with or contaminate water supplied by Sydney Water. So rainwater, stormwater or grey water can really be used only in people's gardens. Even then it would be subjected to fairly rigid plumbing standards. Rather than establishing measures to capture rainwater in such a way the Government introduced this bill. The problem for the community in general is that this is far from an integrated approach. In his second reading speech the Minister stated:
The purpose of this levy will be to ensure that revenue from the service charge is transparently allocated to managing stormwater from land subject to the charge in line with the Local Government Act.
This Government is clearly stating that local government could play a part in this. It could raise a levy and do something about stormwater. When the community raises concerns about the amount of water that is running down the gutters I can imagine the rhetoric from this Government. It will say, "We have done something about it. We have given local government an opportunity to raise a levy. It will be able to do something about it." That is an extraordinary shift of responsibility—from the Government to various water authorities and then to local councils. Some local councils might want to prioritise this issue—Ku-ring-gai is a case in point—but that is something that they have chosen to do. However, they accept that the real responsibility still lies with the State Government, as it should.
The Government separated public land from other categories of land. If councils want to deal responsibly with the management of stormwater on public land that is not subject to a charge, they have to use other revenue. The Government said it wants transparency in respect of these issues but when it comes to an integrated approach clearly it has been damned by the Minister's second reading speech. Ms Sylvia Hale said earlier that the Government will raise only small amounts of money from a number of councils and it will be a long time before any water can be used in a meaningful way. This Government is trying to shift responsibility. In this case it is actually creating a hollow log but normally it is good at raiding hollow logs.
The Government is giving local government an opportunity to impose a levy for stormwater management. It would have to be a transparent process and councils would have to consult with their communities. Clearly, the Government does not have the will to do this. It is all about the desalination plant, which every expert said is not the way forward. It is a poor use of energy, a poor use of resources, and it does not make sense. It would be better if the Government dealt with the problem of rainwater at its source. If the Government were to do that at a household level it would be an expensive proposition. The Government could give people subsidies for installing rainwater tanks but, as I said earlier, there are enormous restrictions. I went through this exercise at my home. I want to install a rainwater tank but I have no appropriate—
The Hon. Rick Colless: Water?
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: No, I have no wall of the right size and shape other than one at the front of the house. My council said that I could not have such a tank at the front of my house. Bushes might well hide the tank and it might never be seen. In an ideal and appropriate place it would have run-off from a number of sources. I could probably install an appropriate pumping system and recycle the water into a swimming pool. However, I have come up against red tape in trying to analyse how best to achieve that end. That is a problem that many people would face.
The Government is trying to have the best of all worlds. It said something is being done about stormwater and that it is giving local government an opportunity to be involved when it is shifting its responsibility. In my view this extraordinary piece of legislation is from a Government that is bereft of good public policy. It resorted to desalination when everybody said that the way forward was the proper capturing of stormwater. This legislation is an abrogation of the Government's responsibility. The only way forward is to oppose this legislation. It is the intention of the Opposition to do so.
Mr IAN COHEN [8.48 p.m.]: I will speak briefly to the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill. I listened with interest to the contribution of other honourable members in debate on this matter. I support the speech that was delivered earlier by Ms Sylvia Hale. She referred to many issues relating to water and to stormwater in our community. I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. Traditionally, the Coalition has been far ahead of the Labor Government in establishing alternative ways of dealing with problems.
This is an interesting and timely discussion. Some would say that this bill is a very small step in the right direction. But it is also a significant step culturally. After the chief executive of Sydney Water said that a desalination plant would be a measure of last resort, I was bitterly disappointed when Mr Iemma stated upon coming to office that the plant would go ahead regardless. We will probably discuss this issue many times in this place in the near future. That statement was far beneath the Premier. The State Labor Government is being driven by Sydney Water. It is a major State-owned corporation that exercises immense power in our community and constantly proposes end-of-pipe and centralised solutions. Although the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill is a very small and in some ways insignificant step, it is nevertheless a step away from the culture of dealing with these problems in a centralised manner.
I sympathise with the Hon. Patricia Forsythe's view that the Government is taking a piecemeal approach. However, the Government has at least recognised that councils can begin to deal with this major problem. There has been much discussion tonight about the fact that this bill is too little too late. But it gives individual councils the chance to deal with stormwater run-off and to create a resource from what is currently considered to be a waste product. There are many ways of dealing with this issue and I hope that this bill represents a slight change of heart on the part of the New South Wales Government and a move away from desalination—which is madness. The former Premier correctly labelled it "bottled electricity". A desalination plant would use 1.5 per cent of the State's electricity and some 2 per cent of Sydney's electricity.
We must decentralise this issue. We must move away from the culture of Sydney Water, which offers monolithic solutions. Sewage effluent is mixing with stormwater and creating pollution, and Sydney Water is not addressing the problem at source. This bill offers local government the opportunity to deal with it at source. It is clear that we need a series of strategies in this area, of which this is just one. I am pleased that Ms Sylvia Hale has foreshadowed an amendment that would secure dollar-for-dollar support from the State Government. A stricter regime would allow for the hypothecation of money collected by local government and its expenditure on stormwater. Remember the environmental trust funds—which were introduced about 15 years ago—that comprised levies imposed by Sydney Water? That money was supposed to be used to improve water infrastructure in Sydney but the Government has regularly raided those funds over the years. Although I have supported its use in forestry in the past, I have always had trouble accepting that that money was being spent when sewerage and stormwater problems in the Sydney metropolitan area had not been resolved.
In fact, the Government, driven by Sydney Water bureaucracy, created—at huge expense to the community—three major tunnels in the city with sea outfalls. Many similar tunnels were constructed along the coast. They were the result of an "out of sight, out of mind" culture when dealing with waste and the refusal to acknowledge it as a resource. Entire flows were diverted into the ocean at huge cost. Such thinking is the reason that we are having so much trouble now creating strategies to recycle, reuse and utilise our most valuable resource intelligently. I have always contended that we do not have a water shortage in Sydney; we have profligate misuse of that resource.
This plan should be the responsibility not of the Department of Local Government but of the Department of Environment and Conservation. I agree with Hon. Patricia Forsythe that the Minister for the Environment, Mr Debus, should have carriage of this bill. However, it is important that all government departments play an active role in this area. NSW Health, in particular, should take a lead. We need updated, reasonable rules and regulations for the installation of domestic water tanks. Members of The Nationals would agree that rules and regulations governing the installation of water tanks in the city are laughable. In the country we all have water tanks on our roofs that we use successfully. In my area it is preferable to drink tank water than water from the mains system.
The Hon. Rick Colless: I bring water from my tanks at home down to Sydney. I won't drink Sydney water.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the Hon. Rick Colless's comment. While I do not go quite that far, I have friends who do. When they visit me in Sydney they bring huge containers of water as presents—which makes it a bit difficult to move around the kitchen of my little Sydney flat! Many people believe tank water is better quality than mains system water. Sydney air pollution may reduce the quality of tank water in certain areas. Individual households should be able to make an educated decision about this matter but, no, NSW Health continually blocks the reuse of water. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe spoke about the difficulties with water tanks. Did anyone in the Chamber visit the wonderful exhibition of water and gardens that was held in the Royal Botanic Gardens recently? I saw water tanks that fit together to create walls and borders. There are all sorts of opportunities to design and retrofit tanks to houses cleverly and creatively so that we can start to save water.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Underfloor tanks.
Mr IAN COHEN: That is another good idea. Smaller tanks can capture the flow of grey water from showers and divert it to the garden. Of course, there are infiltration issues but there are all sorts of opportunities to use grey water—not black water—in such a way that it does not enter the water system. When the system is under stress water tanks can capture rainwater that would otherwise run off and be wasted. Such water use almost mimics the natural process whereby soft ground and forests release water slowly. When water trickles out slowly we move away from the boom and bust of floods. Suburban water tanks can be used to mimic nature and slow the immense water flows that cause a great deal of pollution. This legislation offers many opportunities, but it is just a start. We all know how much damage a desalination plant will cause and what it will cost the community. We know that that infrastructure money could be diverted, like the water, to fund smaller, decentralised projects that stimulate local industries and create jobs.
Industries should put water tanks in private houses, and developers should receive support in terms of the infrastructure cost for their developments to implement clean, green, water-saving opportunities. These things are obvious, and they are being done in a small way already in terms of water saving devices in houses. I have something to think about every time I have a shower in my Sydney flat. Usually I save the grey water to put on my garden, but because I do not have a garden in Sydney—
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Do you take it back to Byron?
Mr IAN COHEN: Not quite. I put it into the top of the toilet cistern. It is as simple as that. I have done that many thousands of times. I do not expect others to have quite the same degree of fanaticism as I do about water. However, if such a system were set up, particularly in houses with two levels or that are elevated, the savings would be immense. Such a system could be set up by people with a little bit of plumbing knowledge or country ingenuity. Many farmers constantly do this sort of thing. Perhaps we should engage farmers as consultants to Sydney Water. They could give practical examples of how to save water because they do it all the time in the bush. If such grey water is diverted in that way into a toilet cistern, households on an average will use 25 to 30 per cent less water each year. That is a huge saving.
Many such opportunities should be undertaken. This bill is one small step in the right direction. There will be many more steps before we overcome the incredible blunders that have been made because of the traditional, historical, cultural attitude that developed from the partnership between Sydney Water—that mammoth bureaucracy that is destroying so much of the environment—and the State Government. The Government has gone along with the process for so many years. I instance the stupid ocean outfalls and, now, its equally stupid desalination plant. We should be trying to decentralise the process and deal with these major issues by using clever initiatives to reuse water to supply irrigation to sporting fields and gardens throughout the city. Individual households should be supported for using clever recycling processes. The health department should be given some relevance by affording people an opportunity to recycle rather than require householders to pay huge sums to purchase valves to prevent water from shandying in with the reticulated system. Householders should be given actual opportunities to make significant steps to withstand drought, which is so much a part of the Australian climatic condition.
I know that there are sceptics in this House, but I suggest the impact on our environment of greenhouse emissions is only going to get worse in the near future. We can save tens of millions of litres of stormwater and wastewater by harvesting and by encouraging individual households, businesses and community groups to use systems that get away from the end-of-pipe engineering solution. I support this bill, as minuscule as it is in terms of providing a resolution to the issue. However, we Greens are used to appreciating the crumbs, wet as they are on this occasion. We would like to see the Government move forward and at least give the impression that it is doing what it can to ameliorate water shortages and water and stormwater misdirection in Sydney at the present time. By doing that I hope it will reach the stage, somewhere along the line, where it realises that a desalination plant is just not needed.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [9.04 p.m.]: I also have some reservations about this bill. However, I accept that the stormwater pipes in our city need to be fixed. A $25 fee per household is not too bad. At the end of the day the State Government is ultimately responsible for such infrastructure. I agree with the many members who have said that harvesting stormwater is much more preferable to a desalination plant for the State of New South Wales.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.05 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill, the object of which is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to allow councils to levy an annual charge for stormwater management services. We recognise that this bill is part of an overall plan of the Government to deal with the serious problem of water shortage in Sydney, the need for which has been exacerbated by the rapid weekly growth in the Sydney population. This bill and the announcement of a desalination plant are signs of desperation in the Government that suddenly it realises that something must be done other than introducing tighter water shortage restrictions in the Sydney metropolitan area. The Government is receiving a backlash from families and citizens of this city and suburbs who cannot understand why suddenly we are short of water.
Obviously there should have been forward planning and infrastructure development over the past 10 and 20 years, not just in the past week. There should have been new dams constructed and greater reuse of stormwater. This bill is just one small step in an attempt to solve the water shortage problems in our city. Other practical opportunities have been mentioned, for example, the use of water tanks, which were previously prohibited by Sydney Water. The Government should commence a massive program to encourage the installation of water tanks in every residence, and reduce or remove red tape that prohibits the installation of such tanks, as well as provide subsidies to meet the cost of installing water tanks.
I note that the Government has set in motion plans to expand the South Coast dam. I note also that it has been criticised for that. I believe the Government does not have much choice if it wishes to provide sufficient water for our growing population. Harvesting stormwater is another avenue of water supply. Not only is much of the stormwater wasted; it floods many homes and businesses throughout Sydney. Up to 5,000 houses and 1,500 businesses in Sydney can be flooded during a major storm, and flooding by urban stormwater in Sydney causes about $70 million damages annually. Many councils are affected by such damage, so it is in their interests that this $25 per residence levy is used carefully. Under the legislation councils are required to provide a separate report of revenue raised by the charge and the activities funded. In other words, there must be annual disclosure to all ratepayers of how much money has been raised through this levy and how it has been spent.
If the levy is spent positively on stormwater improvements and other benefits, I believe the community will accept it. I understand the Local Government and Shires Associations have stated that many councils believe their local communities are willing to pay a small stormwater charge, provided the value for their expenditure is demonstrated locally. Obviously if the council abuses this provision and money is wasted, ratepayers will have good reason to remove their local councillors at the next local government elections.
I am sure the councils will act responsibly in spending this levy. As we know, councils have a prime responsibility for stormwater management and drainage asset ownership in their local government areas. I note that many beachside councils, including in the Kiama area where I live, have gone to a great deal of trouble to maintain stormwater pipes and drains and to erect signs asking people not to allow rubbish to get into drains. Some have even painted pictures of fish on the kerbside at the drain site to remind people where the water is going and not to allow pollutants into the stormwater drainage system. I am sure councils such as Kiama and others on the coastal rim will use this levy responsibly. We support the bill.
[Debate interrupted.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:17 : Update this page