Grievance Debate

SA WATER

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (16:01): Apparently I have accused the government of stripping $2 billion out of SA Water over seven budgets, and I have to say that it is true. But the Speaker is always right, sir, and you corrected me. Apparently, in my supplementary question I did accuse them of stripping $2 billion out of SA Water—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —and I thank you, sir, for correcting me on that.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Because you did.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I freely acknowledge that I did say the word 'strip', and, as we all know, you are not supposed to use argument within questions. So I freely acknowledge that. Now within the scope—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No apology is due. I have acknowledged that I said it. But let me repeat: the Treasurer has stripped $2 billion out of SA Water over seven budgets. He has mismanaged the SA Water budget and he is leading this state into fiscal chaos. He is happy to spend $48 million or so on a Taj Mahal at Victoria Square. He is happy to run an SA Water that is apparently overcharging customers to the extent of 30 per cent, so that it can rake $2 billion off them over seven budgets. He is running an SA Water that has not got the money to build stormwater infrastructure. He is running an SA Water that has not got the money to adequately build wastewater infrastructure. He is running an SA Water that cannot even fix the leaks.

But he has enough money in SA Water to take $2 billion over seven years and put it into his general revenue coffer, so that he can build trams, so that he can have 15 ministers, so that he can hire between 14,000 and 17,000 extra public servants (depending on whose figures you follow), and so that he can hire more fat cats than the state has ever seen in its life before. He is happy to use that $2 billion. It is around, as I understand it, 30 per cent of people's water bills. He is happy to use that on general revenue and he says, 'Well, the previous government used to do that too.' That is true, they did, but nothing on the scale that is occurring under this Treasurer's treasurership. So, I am afraid, yes, I have uttered the words 'stripped $2 billion out of SA Water over 10 years'. I will be careful not to say that again in the context of a question, but I can tell members, in my view, that is what has occurred. It is general revenue; it is general tax. It is simply another form of taxation taken out of the pockets of SA Water bill payers for the purpose of propping up this Treasurer's budget.

It highlights a few simple truths. The people of South Australia will now face a further hike in their SA Water bills. The government cleverly described it as a 12.7 per cent increase (I think it was) in real terms, seeking to keep out of the figures inflation. Of course, we know that is around 17 per cent when you take inflation into account. However, we understand from the information obtained under freedom of information that cabinet has now had recommendations put to it about increases to SA Water bills that are to be gazetted as soon as next week, and that those increases will be more in the order of 20 to 25 per cent rather than 17 per cent. Let us see whether the information we have been given transpires when the Government Gazette is published.

It is true that the costs of providing water have to be fully recovered. There is no question about it. I stand by my remarks. It is a patent truth that the full costs have to be recovered, but the government must explain why it has stripped this $2 billion out of SA Water and whether that is genuinely part of that cost recovery. I don't think it is.

Time expired.