SAFE DRINKING WATER BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:53): Before the luncheon break I was talking about some of the nasties that, in the past, have been involved in incidents where contamination of drinking water has caused illnesses and, in particular in this case, the death of a number of people. I was talking about the outbreak of meningoencephalitis caused by naegleria fowleri, an amoeba, in Port Augusta in 1972. Meningitis was a real worry for the towns around Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Whyalla at that time.

The research and the treatment of water that has been undertaken has removed that fear and now we are able to use the water from out taps, not with impunity because we always need to be careful how we handle water once we have taken it out of the taps but with the certainty that the water coming out of the taps that we use for drinking, bathing, showering, cleaning and washing is of excellent quality.

Some of the other nasties that have been quite common around the place have been some of the pathogens. Cryptosporidium and giardia are two very common bugs that infect the gut of animals. The most frequent source of contamination is animal faeces. The last serious outbreak that was noted was in Milwaukee in 1993, which led to over 400,000 people being sick. I understand that the problems in Sydney in 1993 were due to both cryptosporidium and giardia.

There is another group of pathogens: blue green algae or cyanobacteria. These cause the algal blooms on open water, and we see it in the River Torrens on many occasions, and they certainly can cause issues in reservoirs, lakes and water storages. They are being treated with everything from copper sulphate to chlorine and other forms of disinfectant so that now we can be confident that, under most circumstances, our water is safe to drink.

The cost of failure is something we do not want to think about. As I said, two young children—a seven-year old girl and a five-year old boy—died from amoebic meningitis in Port Augusta when I was there in 1972. I just cannot fathom what a devastating outcome that must have been for the parents and relatives of those young kids.

The need for good legislation is paramount. The legislation in Australia has not had a long history; in fact, it is quite recent. As stated in the discussion paper on the Safe Drinking Water Bill, there has been limited regulatory oversight of drinking water quality in Australia:

Risks associated with the current limited regulatory approach were articulated by the Productivity Commission which indicated that a 'light-handed' regulatory approach gives 'less certainty of compliance and less transparency and [less] accountability' and that 'legal responsibilities are not always clear and rigorous assessment is lacking.'

That is what we are trying to achieve with this legislation. That is what governments interstate and overseas have been trying to achieve. It continues:

In 2000, the Australian approach to regulation of drinking water started to change. COAG signed an Intergovernmental Agreement for a new food regulatory agreement (Model Food Bill) that included provisions applying to drinking water (Food Standards Australia New Zealand recognises drinking water as a food). Under the COAG agreement the provisions relating to drinking water can be included in Food Acts or in alternative legislation.

In South Australia the provisions for the model food bill were incorporated into the Food Act and Food Regulations, and now we have this piece of legislation before us here. As to interstate legislation, Victoria has the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003. Risk management plans are mandatory and they have to be approved by a third-party auditor. They have to meet the Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines, and they have to publish the reports of their testing.

Similar legislation exists in Tasmania. From 1997 (they are a bit ahead of us) the direction was provided by the Drinking Water Quality Guidelines, with regulatory support in the Public Health Act. Queensland has the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008. Tasmania, Queensland, the ACT and New South Wales require risk management plans, and those plans have to be audited. In the ACT they do not, but the chief health minister has to approve them. They must all meet the Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. Those reports should be published, and the published results should be freely available to all who may be interested.

In New South Wales a memorandum of understanding between New South Wales Health and Sydney Water/Hunter Valley Water is incorporated in the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 and Regulations 2008 for Private Sector Water Suppliers, and that is part of the Public Health Act 1991 and includes provisions on safe drinking water for all suppliers. The ACT, as I said, has similar legislation incorporated in their Public Health Act.

Overseas, New Zealand has a Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2007, and similar sorts of things apply: registering of suppliers, risk management plans, meeting water quality standards, publishing reports. It is the same in the United States; back in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act was first established. It has taken a while for us to get there—in the past there have been some significant oversights—but now we are up there with this legislation, and I look forward to seeing how it works.

The European Union, which would be a real challenge, has the Drinking Water Directives, one of which is 98/83/EEC. I do not want to be bound by overseas conventions or seek to be a signatory to an overseas convention; I would rather have our own legislation. I am one of these people who is not only a state's rightist but also who likes some control of what is going on in our own community as a state member of parliament.

The need to continually monitor our water quality is imperative, whether it is SA Water or Port Augusta with meningitis or in another case that came to my attention which was the Terowie dam water. This is monitored by SA Water. In the end there were high counts of E. coli and other coliforms which were indicators of significant faecal contamination. So we need to make sure that people all over South Australia are able to drink good quality water at all times.

I congratulate all those who have worked on this bill. There has been extensive consultation. The model risk management plans for both groundwater and small rainwater supply have been put out there. The need to make sure that we do what we can not to get in the way of people running businesses and to make sure that what they are delivering is to the standard that we and the public expect is imperative.

I will quickly refer to some of the clauses in the bill. There are definitions of drinking water, and this is important because we are not talking about bottled water here. The definition of 'drinking water' means:

...water that is intended for human consumption or for purposes connected with human consumption (such as the washing, preparation or cooking of food or the making of ice intended for human consumption...

Certainly, when you are overseas, as I and others do, you do not have ice in your drinks because there are a lot of pathogens that can survive that process of being frozen. Of course, it is in the drink and away you go, you are off to some of those different types of toilets they have over there. The definition of drinking water 'does not include water that has been packaged in a bottle, cask or other container'. The definition of drinking water provided here is quite comprehensive.

The water resource definition has the same meaning as in the Natural Resources Management Act. I know that the member for Stuart has some issues that he may talk about with people who are carting water into remote communities or supplying water, that they may see this sort of legislation as being some hindrance or onerous imposition on them. I do not think that is the case but I look forward to his contribution in this place. Under the water resources definition at clause 3(5)(b):

the amount of water being supplied exceeds a volume prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

I will be interested to see about that, and I will ask the minister about that in committee.

For the purpose of this act drinking water is unsafe if the water causes or is likely to cause harm, is the means by which an illness has been or is likely to be transmitted, contains any pathogens, substance, chemical or blue-green algal toxin (whether alone or in combination) at levels that pose a risk to human health, or is not otherwise reasonably fit for human consumption.

The important part for some of those people out there in small businesses is that the application of this act does not apply in relation to any water collected or recovered at domestic premises of a prescribed class for use at those premises, and that was mainly to do with the B&Bs, the farmstays, some of the trails, caravan parks and that sort of thing. The bill refers to 'rainwater collected at any place of a prescribed kind for use at that place'. Once again, that is the B&Bs. Clause 4(1)(d) relies on people not expecting to have drinking water at a place that they visit, and it states:

rainwater or water recovered from a bore, well or a source prescribed by the regulations, supplied at a park, reserve or other place constituting open space that is available for public recreational purposes where it is reasonable to expect that members of the public would not usually expect to rely on the provision of water for human consumption at that place;

I think that is a fair enough thing too. You do not go out bush and expect to turn the tap on and have potable water at your campsite at every place you go. You know that would be prohibitively expensive and practically impossible to do.

The registration of drinking water providers is set out in the bill. A person must be registered under this act, and I will be interested to find out in committee what is the cost of registration. Part 2, clause 5(3) states:

An applicant for registration must furnish the Minister with such information as the Minister may require.

I think we need to have that clarified. Cost of registration and suspension of registration are issues that we need to talk about. I am just giving the minister and his advisers notice of some of the issues that we will be canvassing in committee so that they can perhaps prepare for that stage. I have an issue with the suspension of drinking water supplies permits. Part 2, clause 9(5) states:

The drinking water provider may, within 14 days after receiving the notice, lodge with the Minister a written objection.

Can they continue to supply during that time, and what will be the requirements?

Risk management plans are laid out in the bill. We talked about the use of standard risk management plans, and that is a good thing. I was pleased to hear from the minister's advisers that they are more than happy to assist businesses in setting up risk management plans and in implementing the monitoring of drinking water through these plans. The cost of doing that both in time and money is something that has been raised with me.

Regarding auditing and inspectors, some of my colleagues and, I suppose, some members of the public have some questions about this part of the legislation, so I look forward to having them clarified in committee. The chief executive may approve a natural person to be an auditor or an inspector for the purposes of this act. So, they can be local government officers or officers from the Department of Health or possibly the EPA, and I would like to know a bit more about that.

The chief executive must be satisfied that the person is competent to carry out the functions and the person's technical skills and experience, and any guidelines relating to competency criteria determined by the chief executive need to be applied. Is that a TAFE course? Is it a university degree? Where are we going there? Audits and inspections have to be done every year in the case of a large water provider or every two years for medium and small water providers.

I will just quickly flick through to this because this is the part where there may be a real need to clarify some of the issues, that is, part 7 of the bill—Administration and enforcement. Clause 36—Powers of authorised officers, states in subclause (1):

(a) at any reasonable time, enter or inspect any premises or vehicle; and

(b) during the course of the inspection of any premises or vehicle—

(i) ask questions of any person found in the premises or vehicle;

It sounds good but that person is obliged to answer those questions even if they would normally incriminate themselves. Clause 36(1)(c) states:

require any person to answer any question that may be relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act.

The bill further states that, having been asked a question under this section, the person must answer the question to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, and, if they do not, it is an offence carrying a penalty of $25,000. The bill continues:

It is not an excuse for a person to refuse or fail to furnish information under this section on the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate the person or make that person liable to a penalty.

On the face of it, that sounds pretty draconian, but then you go on to the next subclause, which provides:

However, if compliance with a requirement to furnish information might tend to incriminate a person or make a person liable to a penalty, then—

(a) in the case of a person who is required to produce, or provide a copy of, a document or information—the fact of production, or provision of, the document or the information (as distinct from the contents of the documents or the information);...is not admissible as evidence [in court].

I will need some explanation as to what is meant by 'as distinct from the contents of the documents or information', but we can talk about that in committee. That similar obligation to answer questions, again, appears in clause 41, where a person, again, is obliged under penalty of a $25,000 fine to answer questions.

I can understand completely the need to get that information straightaway, because if someone has knowledge of where a water supply is being contaminated, poisoned or being made unsafe to drink you need to get that information and get it straightaway. Whether that person is somehow involved in legal action is something that we need to have clarified in committee.

That is about all I need to say at this stage. In committee, though, we will have some questions about the regulations, the review of the act and the discussions with the local government. Certainly, I will need to know a bit more about the fees and charges that will be prescribed under regulation.

I thank the minister and his staff for their cooperation. I will just say that it has been another piece of legislation that has come on quickly into this place. My office wrote to the minister's office in, I think, late December or early January asking when this legislation was coming; so, we were expecting it. My office had done quite a bit of homework on this, but then it was introduced on 9 March and here we are on 22 March debating the legislation.

It is good that we are here at this stage doing this. I look forward to some answers in committee. I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (16:12): It is timely that we should be here discussing the introduction of the Safe Drinking Water Bill on 22 March as it is World Water Day today. As noted by the Minister for Health, drinking water safety is currently regulated in South Australia under the Food Act 2001. However, while the Food Act defines a broad requirement to produce safe drinking water, it does not provide direction to providers on how this requirement should be achieved or how it should be measured. The Safe Drinking Water Bill addresses this lack of clarity.

South Australia has long been identified as the driest state in the driest inhabited continent in the world. The recent drought has provided a clear reminder that water is a precious commodity, and that safe drinking water is a critical requirement for sustaining and maintaining a healthy South Australian population and community.

Safe water supports longer life spent in good health and improves productivity and higher living standards for all of us. The benefits of safe drinking water are often underestimated in developed countries such as Australia. This safety is generally taken for granted in most parts of the country, with the exception of, perhaps, rural and remote areas that suffer from the isolation and the tyranny of distance with safe water.

This is despite the fact that the introduction of safe drinking water supplies and sanitations have had a great positive impact on public health in the developed world—more than any other single measure—over the last couple of centuries. For example, in the first half of the 20^th century, United States' mortality from infectious disease fell by 65 per cent, child mortality was greatly reduced and life expectancy increased by 26 years. Nearly half of this improvement can be attributed to the provision of safe drinking water.

Similar impacts occurred in Australia at the time. The importance of safe drinking water continues to be illustrated by high mortality rates from infectious disease in developing countries, where about two million people die each year from gastric illness largely attributed to unsafe water and poor sanitation.

Most South Australians are provided with drinking water through a reticulated supply system of SA Water, which has long worked cooperatively with the Department of Health to meet the shared goal of ensuring safety and protecting public health. This is a complex task and constant vigilance is required to meet and overcome the large and varied challenges in drinking water safety.

All of our major drinking water supplies incorporate multiple controls and are monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The surveillance undertaken by SA Water and the Department of Health goes largely unseen. The advantage of reticulated water supplies is that a large number of people can be supplied with safe drinking water; however, there is an issue with the consequences, which can be very high in terms of public health and economic and social impacts when the system goes wrong.

Drinking water outbreaks in the developed world, while infrequent, are a reality. In 1993, over 400,000 people in Milwaukee (United States) contracted gastric disease through a highly treated drinking water supply system. In 1998, Australia received a large wake-up call when Sydney's drinking water supply was declared unsafe for several weeks. The level of public concern was high and the media coverage was extensive. The estimated cost to the economy exceeded $75 million.

Responses to drinking water incidents and associated public outrage typically lead major changes in the drinking water standards and regulations. The Sydney water incident was no different and heralded significant changes to the management and regulation of Australian drinking water supplies. The most immediate impact was the revision of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines to strengthen the focus on continuous quality assurance, with the Department of Health and SA Water taking leading roles in this process. A risk management framework that can be applied to all supplies irrespective of size was also included in the national guidelines.

SA Water has implemented risk management plans for all of its drinking water supplies. The implementation of risk management plans in rural and remote communities has moved more slowly due to the tyranny of distance and reduced capacity and resources. This is an international problem and one that cannot be overlooked because small suppliers have been shown to represent a heightened risk to public health. As a result, there has been increased attention directed to smaller rural communities around the world.

The World Health Organisation, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Water Commission have developed specific guidance and tools to assist operators of smaller water supplies to implement improved management and quality assurance of drinking water safety standards. Similarly, the Australian guidance on the use of rainwater tanks incorporates a risk management approach based on the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Again, South Australian agencies have proved to be key contributors to this work at both the national and international level.

In practical terms, the Department of Health has worked with a range of smaller drinking water providers to support the implementation of these risk management plans. These have included providers and managers of supplies in the major Indigenous and outback communities, as well as operators of water supplies in bed and breakfasts and in government schools not connected to mains water. This collaborative program started before the development of the Safe Drinking Water Bill.

Other events have also contributed to the change, including increased corporatisation and commercialisation of the water industry and the demand for greater diversity and innovation in the provision of drinking water supplies in our nation. The drinking water industry is changing to meet the increased challenges presented by climate variation and ever-growing populations.

Historically, Australia has had a light-handed approach to drinking water regulation but, in 2003, Victoria led the way by enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act to address inadequacies with its established regulatory framework to provide a descriptive approach to assuring drinking water safety and to address the disparity between metropolitan and rural supplies. In 2006, the New South Wales government developed the Water Industry Competition Act to address drinking water safety requirements for private sector providers. New South Wales is currently developing a general requirement for quality assurance or risk management plans for all its drinking water supplies. In May 2008, as the drought continued in Queensland, the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act was developed and passed.

All of these pieces of legislation include a number of common features. Most importantly, they include requirements for risk management plans in accordance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. They also include requirements to meet water quality standards, regular auditing of drinking water supplies and the reporting of routine results and incidents to a regulatory agency.

Consultation on developing a South Australian safe drinking water bill commenced in 2007, and there have been broad-ranging discussions with stakeholders from government agencies, local government and representative bodies such as the bed and breakfast and farmstay association along the way. This led to the release of a discussion paper in 2009 which identified the proposed content of this bill. The key principles were based on established national and international legislation and a requirement to implement good practice as defined by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

Consultation has been broad and involved more than 300 stakeholders. Responses have been consistently positive and supportive of the proposed bill and its principal features. As a result of these discussions, a number of other measures have been taken to reduce the impacts including combining drinking water audits and inspections, where possible, with food audits or with existing accreditation programs, such as that undertaken by the South Australian Tourism Industry Council.

Provision for exemptions was also included for small water supplies derived from rainwater tanks, and this has been mentioned earlier by one of the other speakers. This is consistent with existing Department of Health policy that well maintained rainwater tanks generally represent a low risk to the community. An exemption was also included for discretionary supplies, such as rainwater and bore water provided in parks and recreational facilities, where supply is not expected or guaranteed.

These measures were included in the draft bill released for further consultation in 2010. Further feedback resulted in premises such as bed and breakfasts, community halls and caravan parks being eligible for exemption, but higher risk premises such as hospitals, aged-care and childcare facilities, which provide water to potentially vulnerable people, will not be eligible for this exemption for sensible reasons. An important change was to include provision for development of an agreement on administration of the bill with local government. This change was supported by the Local Government Association (LGA).

The two phases of the consultation engaged a wide range of stakeholders including operators of the Leigh Creek, Coober Pedy and Wirrina water supplies, operators of small supplies including bed and breakfasts, caravan parks, water carters, the Local Government Association, environmental health officers, local council chief executives, SA Water, United Water, United Utilities and other government agencies. The changes identified during the consultation have strengthened and improved this bill and have reduced the impacts on providers of small supplies and on local government.

Except for the identified exemptions, the bill applies to all drinking water providers in community or commercial settings in a manner that is designed to be commensurate with the size, complexity and potential risk posed by different types of drinking water supplies. The bill applies to drinking water and, hence, does not apply to supplies provided for non-drinking purposes in communities such as Mintabie, Yunta, Terowie and Cockburn or to irrigation water supply for domestic use. The bill does not apply to packaged water—including bottled water, which is marketed differently and, by international convention, is regulated through food legislation—or to domestic bores and rainwater tanks.

Due to the pressures on our drinking water supplies, South Australia has long been a leader in investigating challenges to drinking water safety and then applying responses to our legislation. The voluntary measures that have been adopted to protect our public water supplies have served us well but circumstances are changing and have changed. There are more pressures on our water supplies and more and more providers are entering the market. To ensure that all South Australians receive safe drinking water supplies, effective and proportionate regulation is required. I commend this bill which helps us to achieve that.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:23): I rise to support the bill. I too would just like to acknowledge, as has the member for Taylor, that today is World Water Day. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that, growing up on a farm, I have dealt with all sorts of water quality issues, all sorts of water standards and, in many cases, the lack of water standards. I vividly remember as a lad living on my grandparents' farm south of Adelaide, and we used to have to undo the tap to get the yabbies out of the spout. It was always a novelty to flush the toilet and watch the yabbies come down and chase everything down the cistern.

The Hon. R.B. Such: You didn't get any crabs, did you?

Mr WHETSTONE: No, we didn't get any crabs, member for Fisher. It was just one of the experiences I had as a young lad growing up on the farm. They were the sort of standards that we put up with—and, by the way, we didn't contract any diseases!

An honourable member: Nutritious!

Mr WHETSTONE: They were nutritious. Today's standards are much higher. There are much more critical standards put on everything we do as part of our everyday actions. I would like to speak more specifically about the water supply in the electorate of Chaffey. As most members of the house would know, all water supplied in Chaffey comes either from the Murray River or a rainwater tank. Over time, SA Water has become the main domestic water supplier. Most of the water is supplied through filtration plants into the major towns up there such as Renmark, Berri, Cobdogla—which I think was the last filtration plant to be completed—Loxton, Swan Reach and Waikerie. SA Water has also had many issues regarding the filtration plants with the issue of the black water that has been coming down the river. I will touch on that a little later.

We also have the irrigation trusts which supply a lot of the domestic water to the outlying homes and properties. When we talk about drought, we do not have too many issues because the water is normally fairly clean, delivered to the houses through pipelines and not too many people have much to say about it. However, all of a sudden, as has happened this year, we are dealing with a high flow and a lot of over-the-bank flows.

When that happens, a lot of water goes out into the floodplains and backwaters, and it is almost cleaning the floor of the river corridor. That is picking up all the leaves and bark and is leaching the tannins out of them. When it leaches, it takes the black away from all that material and that is why we call it a blackwater event, obviously. What it is doing is reducing the dissolved oxygen in the water but it also brings a lot of organic matter out of the river, through the pipes and delivered into people's homes. It really is quite an experience to turn on a tap after these recent events and to almost throw up when you smell the water. It really is a very serious issue.

However, that is something that farmers and country people are prepared to put up with. It is part and parcel of living on the land and having your water supplied through an irrigation trust. The way the irrigation trusts get around that is that they send out a notice to the ratepayers to let them know that it is non-potable water. We have to have different water supplies, not regulated, but we do have to have tanks that we can put that river water into to settle.

The settling process is done by people using alum, concrete or cement powder; they have many methods of filtering their own water and most of them have rainwater tanks. Through the course of this year people's rainwater tanks have been full because of the good rains but in a house with two adults and two kids (as a standard family) that water supply does not always last. That has been one of the major issues, with the quality of water right the way down the river. If we are talking about South Australia, it is from the border down to the lakes. That is really part and parcel of living on the river.

Just dealing with some of the people who are living on the river, I think there are some small communities within Chaffey where it is about time that the government put a little bit of support into them and upgraded and extended some of the pipelines into those small communities. I note that the Lyrup village is still using non-potable water, as is the Lock 4 community.

Ironically, SA Water mains, which have filtered water, go right past those communities. One thing that I think should be noted is that it is about time that the infrastructure was put in place so that these people can have almost the luxury of having clean, filtered water to their homes. There is nothing worse than turning a tap on, filling a bath up, having a black bath and almost getting out of the bath dirtier than when you got in. It really is quite a culture shock.

The infrastructure needs to be put in place for many of these small communities. In saying that, it is ironic that the mains that go past those communities are watering sheep, pigs and cows. The sheep, pigs and cows are drinking filtered water, yet the local communities are being denied that filtered water. It really beggars belief, but I am hoping that this government will look at that and acknowledge that these people have a right to filtered water, probably more so than the sheep, cows and pigs.

I guess we also need to recognise that the Australian drinking water standards and guidelines are sufficient for our water safety. It has been proven over time that Adelaide, having one of the worst reputations for water in the world, has picked up its game. In many cases, I congratulate SA Water on being able to provide treated, filtered water to homes, but I think more needs to be done.

The aesthetic quality of water really has been a bit of an issue, particularly with the blackwater and in drought. We have outbreaks of blue-green algae plumes up and down the river from time to time, with low flow and high temperatures. Again, that is putting the water standards for consumers at risk and that is another reason why there is a need for more infrastructure through SA Water mains, through the SA Water filtration plants, to service the homes within Chaffey.

I would also like just to touch on the diverse water supply, not only in Chaffey but right the way around South Australia. It has been touted that the desal plant down south of Adelaide is going to be one of the diverse water supplies to Adelaide and it will come at great cost. It is going to come at huge cost and I think that people who are upset with water prices today will be more upset if the desal plant does come online. Reportedly the desal plant has to be maintained for a two-year period at 75 per cent capacity so that its warranty can be upheld, so it really makes you wonder just how much money people are going to pay for having a 100-gigalitre desal plant for Adelaide.

Moving along from today, maybe in 10 years' time we will be looking at more underground water use and more stormwater. I really think that the government has been very slow to move, particularly on stormwater harvest. We do not have to look at large areas of harvesting; we can look at small community harvesting operations.

Some of the new housing developments can actually have rainwater harvested off their roofs and put into a community holding cell. As most here would recognise, some new housing developments have very, very small yards and almost non-existent walkways around the sides of the houses. That would be a way in which every house would contribute. Every house has roof space and a catchment area, and that water could be put into holding cells at very much reduced cost.

It would be clean water put straight into the cells. It would be clean, it would be harvested and it would be ready to use. It does not have to be drinking water. It can be used on parks and gardens. It can be used on some of the greywater, some of the cleaning infrastructure within the house, but it is another way of diversifying with water; and it is water that we can use, of high standard, because it is clean.

We harvest water off the roads, we harvest water from major building sites, and a lot of that water is contaminated and it has to be treated. Sometimes it has to be put into wetlands, sometimes it has to be put through large filtration projects before it can be stored in aquifers; before it can be stored, potentially, in large storage facilities, but at great cost.

Again, we also look at recycling water and it is something that has been put on the agenda a number of times but most sides of government are a little reluctant to go there because the idea of drinking someone else's sewage does not rub well.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: I wouldn't like to drink my own either.

Mr WHETSTONE: No. As the minister says, we do not really want to drink our own, but if we look around the world there are many—

Mr Pederick: Whose are you going to drink?

Mr WHETSTONE: Oh, member for Hammond, I will trade with you! Madam Speaker, I need to get back on track. The member for Hammond has obliterated my concentration. I think the recycle issue will be put back on the agenda in the near future. It is something that needs to be looked at and considered. Over time, and it is proven all around the world in many countries—and I note that in Singapore they use water up to seven times, so to think that you can actually drink that same water seven times after watching it go down the drain or flushing it out to where it has to go. It can be treated and it can be re-used, but I think it is more of a mindset. It needs to be addressed because, once it is treated, it is a safe option to re-drink.

I have just about come to the end of my contribution here, but again I reiterate that in the future all water will be used many times and we do need to have these standards so that we can drink our water many, many times. It is also important to aim for the maximum possible water safety and quality standards, not the minimum standards.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:38): It is with great pleasure that I follow the member for Chaffey. I always enjoy the opportunity to listen to the member for Chaffey talking about water issues. I thought that was a compelling contribution, given without notes, and I commend him for that contribution to this discussion.

I am very glad to be able to make a contribution myself on the matter. The provision of safe drinking water is a fundamental health issue. The aim to provide water safety before delivery to consumers, in all circumstances—to measure it and provide information to consumers on test results—is imperative.

The provision of safe drinking water is not only, as the United Nations has declared, a basic human right but it is also an issue with a high degree of personal interest for me, given my family's history of involvement in the pioneering, in many ways, of the manufacture of water treatment equipment in this state. For those in the house who might not be aware, at the South Australian Water Awards in 2008 my father had the honour of being awarded the Premier's Water Medal for outstanding contribution to the water industry in South Australia.

I suspect he might have been picked out more by Professor Don Bursall than by the Premier himself, but it was certainly an appropriate recognition of the contribution that he has made.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: Put his name down.

Mr GARDNER: Tony Gardner is his name, and he did a fantastic job throughout his career. I thank the minister for his invitation. As the minister has pointed out, we can be proud in this state of the longstanding provision of drinking water by its institutions and instrumentalities, which, for the most part, has served South Australia well. Also, as the minister reported in his second reading contribution, South Australia has no recorded outbreaks and limited and well-managed incidents only of infectious diarrhoeal disease, which is the main cause of death in many developing countries.

Notwithstanding that the provision of safe and reliable drinking water supplies is a basic population health requirement, what does also need to be considered in relation to this bill is the imposition of costs and compliance regulations, which should not be inappropriately onerous. On face value, what is being proposed in this bill does not seem to place so high a burden on business or the community as to be inappropriate. I say this, having been reassured in the briefing from departmental officers offered to the opposition earlier this week, that particularly small providers and companies would be provided with assistance, where necessary, in preparing the risk management plans that will now be required of them.

Further, every two years small providers will also bear the impost of an $80 cost for their mandatory audit and probably about $260 worth of testing costs for the metals, such as arsenic nitrates, fluoride, or disease-causing microorganisms—bacteria and viruses. In reality, these companies will largely be doing this testing now. Many providers will be undertaking these costs now, and it is my view that these costs would be acceptable to the majority of providers.

Indeed, I have also been assured by the health department that the cost of audit inspections are consistent with the current food inspection audits, which are mandatory every two years. Having been reassured that smaller operators will be given help to develop their risk management plans, I trust that we will not have any problems arising in that area down the track.

This bill, I note, does not apply to single domestic home users. It remains a matter of personal choice to drink rain or bore water or, indeed, to treat water not meeting potable standards in the home. While this can be done, I would hope that anyone undertaking that risk does so with the best possible equipment, much of which is, of course, manufactured here in South Australia, and with suitable testing carried out.

As a member with five water companies and collectives servicing the suburb of Skye in my electorate, I would like to remind the house that Skye households represent the only water consumers in suburban Australia—living just six kilometres from the CBD, as they do—without mains water. For well understood historical reasons this is a group who are dependent upon alternative suppliers that are not defined as potable standard.

The local suppliers—the companies and also those who have worked for the collectives servicing relatively small numbers of households—have made a significant contribution to their local community for a number of decades. That water is for the main part sourced groundwater and not potable; therefore, the imposts in this bill affecting other providers would not apply to these constituents in Morialta.

These companies and collectives undertake their own testing for microorganisms and metals at their own cost for their own peace of mind, of course, as they are also consumers as well suppliers. Many consumers boil or treat the supplied water for potable use or use treated rainwater. Given this bill is directed at ensuring water is safe for drinking and basic hygiene, the fact that no such mains supply is available in this part of suburban Adelaide is a matter which needs serious further consideration.

There is also a significant fire danger risk not just to the residents of Skye but also surrounding suburbs that is posed by the lack of mains water being piped through the suburb, which, of course, backs directly onto the Hills. Having toured this area with the Country Fire Service, as I do every year on their annual fire track inspection, I can assure the house that this represents a serious safety concern that is recognised by that group.

In late 2009, along with the federal member for Sturt and the previous member for Morialta, I was able to give support, as the Liberal candidate for Morialta, to a proposal by the Burnside council, along with SA Water, to provide mains supply to Skye. However, the proposal included some $300,000 funding from Burnside and $700,000 from SA Water, and required a $3 million federal grant that was not forthcoming. While the residents of Skye are doing their best to get by at the moment, I am certain that we will need to revisit this issue at some stage.

Getting back to the specifics of the bill at hand, I note that significant consultation took place, but even so it was not perfect. A number of the suppliers in Morialta, to whom my office staff and I have spoken in the last couple of days, found out about it through those phone calls. While they should prove to be exempt from the obligations as described, I would imagine that is possible that they may have had the potential to offer some useful input into processes, and I hope that the Department of Health, as with all government departments, will continue to seek ways to improve their consultation processes. It is something that all departments should be looking to.

Safe drinking water cannot be taken for granted and, in essence, what is proposed is that risk management plans be put in place and include monitoring and incident reporting, that there be regulatory reporting of results, the requirement to provide results to consumers (such as through a website) and a register for all drinking water providers.

With diversified supplies and a proliferation of drinking water providers, it is timely that we further consider the development and implementation of drinking water legislation. The aim to discourage poor practices is good in principle, and I trust that we will see this bill is not used to squeeze small providers unnecessarily. Application of good management practices is necessary to confirm the supply of safe drinking water and public health, and the formation of a framework for providers' roles, responsibilities and reporting requirements is suitable.

The bill describes reporting requirements when it is suspected that a water supply could be unsafe and enables action to be taken to protect public health. Other members have flagged some concerns with how this part of the bill is to be managed. While I will leave that argument to others, I confirm that I am at one with the opposition on our treatment on this aspect of the bill.

While local government is reportedly pleased with the administrative structure of the bill, additional red tape such as furnishing reports is not universally welcomed by the business community already undertaking testing to achieve safe drinking water. It will be the responsibility of the provider to get inspections carried out, which is not unreasonable, and I am pleased that they will be given the opportunity to use council or independent testing.

I think that while in South Australia in particular we are very focused on access to sufficient water, it is equally essential that the water supply is safe for drinking and basic hygiene. Quality is just as important as quantity. I, therefore, indicate my support for the bill with the caveats that the shadow minister has already flagged on the basis that it may make a contribution towards ensuring that goal.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:48): I indicate my support for the bill. The issue of water, quantity and safe drinking water is extremely important and receives a great deal of discussion in this place. I also support the member for Morialta in the remarks that he made about his family's involvement in water. I know Tony and Veronica quite well. I was present at McCracken resort at Victor Harbor three or four years ago when Malcolm Turnbull was the federal minister for the environment and he came down there to open this event at which Tony and Veronica had a display. It gave me great pleasure that the first person I took up to Malcolm Turnbull was Tony Gardner out of interest.

What does concern me in this whole debate is how far we go by way of regulation and bureaucratic requirement on water. Why I say that is to do with the ultimate cost to the user of the water. It is all very well for those of us who supply our own water, and I might come back to that in a minute, but there has been much said about the amount of reservoir water we use, the water that comes through from the Murray, and there has been a lot said about the desalination plant. But the actual cost of the water—whether it be there or in some of the far-flung areas of the state that are supplied by other means (bore water or whatever)—the cost of production of water is getting alarming.

Let me tell you about the information I have just received from the Minister for Water's office. The Penneshaw desalination plant readily comes to mind, which was the first desalination plant in the state, built by the Brown government and opened by the minister at the time Michael Armitage in 1996, I think, from memory.

The cost of that water now is approximately $4.60 per kilolitre over a three-year period or 46¢ per litre. Clearly the water is cheaper to produce at night due to low tariffs and is cheaper to produce in summer than in winter with low water viscosity. On top of that, and this is where these costs come in, the very tiny Penneshaw desalination plant which supplies three or four hundred people has to spend $50,000 every three years on new membranes. That is older technology, but I suspect the desal plant that is coming online down at Hallett Cove will require similar replacement, and God knows what that will cost.

The other thing about this original desal plant is that the average production cost of $4.60 per kilolitre does not include the amortisation of the original capital cost, the plant, the pipelines, the chlorination facility, bulk storage reservoir or plant update cost. So, I think we are setting governments in the future an alarming scenario for the cost of producing water and, therefore, an alarming cost to the people of South Australia in having good clean water that is something that they have come to take for granted but a lot of them conveniently grizzle about it at any given time.

A constituent in my electorate down on the South Coast, Mr Warren Godson, who may or may not be known to the minister or other ministers is a regular visitor to my office with his complaints about the quality of the water and the poisons in the water that we are using in South Australia. Mr Godson regularly raises the issue of boron and other substances and regularly asks me to collect information for him. Probably in fairness to him, his views are fairly extreme, but he does have a deep and meaningful relationship with the water that he drinks and he wants to be sure that he is not getting poisoned.

This takes me back a step or two to domestic storage of water. Myself and possibly others in this place have been brought up on the water that we captured for our own use. In my case, we have around about 100,000 litres of storage on our farm property for our own domestic use and this and that and everything else. We keep our gutters and our tanks clean to the best of our ability, and the water falls on the roof and runs into the tanks—I am living testament that it cannot be too bad, I suppose!

I recall about 15 years ago on another property of ours that we had a 6,000 gallon tank—which is 30,000 litres—down there attached to a shed which I used for sheep and spraying and what not, and I used to get a drink out of it—and you will love this story. The water tasted a bit funny so I got up and found, I think it was six possums floating in the top, which had found their way in there. The end of the story for the record is that—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: It got worse than that because I had to drain the water and let it all go and I found that I could not fit in the hole on the top of the tank. Fortunately my wife fitted in the hole! This is a true story and Jan and I were only talking about it the other day. I got a ladder that fitted and I put it in the tank, and I got on the tank with a rope and a bucket, and Jan got down in there, and we bucketed out the six possums and we cleaned out a hideous mess that was left on the bottom. I did penance for that for about the next five years, I think! So, I am very keen on fresh water, minister, let me tell you.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: What does possum taste like?

Mr PENGILLY: Foul. The reality is that we must now provide for the future by way of having very good water. We have to do that. It is our responsibility. So, in supporting the bill I principally want to speak about what the cost will be to future residents of South Australia to provide for their own water by way of our demands in legislation such as this today. In closing, I support the bill and wish that it goes through the houses quite quickly.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:55): I rise to speak on the Safe Drinking Water Bill 2010, which was published in June 2010 as a draft bill for consultation. More recently the Minister for Health introduced a final bill, which apparently has some amendment post that consultation. I indicate that I will not be opposing this bill.

There are a number of questions to be asked about its applicability, but, nevertheless, the question of ensuring that we have a quality of safe drinking water and standards is important—whether this is the appropriate measure by which to secure it or whether it is necessary to make amendment to secure that in South Australia is another matter.

Let me first address the bill according to the minister's presentation to the parliament earlier this month. The minister outlined, first, a history in South Australia of the development of what is now known as SA Water, which earlier last century (in its previous life as the Engineering & Water Supply Department) took on the responsibility (which has developed into an almost monopoly) of the provision of potable water to South Australians.

That history is very interesting. In fact, the SA Water department, I think about 10 years ago (it may have been more recent), published a DVD of the history of water engineering in this state. It is a commendable history, and it is one of which I think we should be proud, given the level of engineering feats that have been undertaken not just to provide pipelines crisscrossing the state and providing for security of water supply but also very significant reservoirs that have been built to provide for that.

In modern times—in the recent 20 years or so—we have developed technology in South Australia which has been sold to the world, and that is something of which this state should be proud. There is much to be considered about water in our state because of the scarcity of it, or as some would say 'abuse of it' in the sense of wasting it.

Today is not the day to talk about the availability, accessibility or affordability of water, but it is fair to say that they are all very important components in the provision of water in this state. It is all very well to say that we have a whole lot of new rules to protect what is apparently a problem in relation to the standard and safety towards drinking water, but if we do not have any water in the first place, or we restrict our access to it, or we make it so expensive that people cannot even drink it, then these further aspects seem to pale into insignificance.

So, what does this bill actually do? It tells us, according to the minister, that, consistent with a regulatory model—which has been considered at some national levels, and also at some other state levels—it is the way to go with the view to protecting our water supply and keeping it to a high standard, coupled with national guidelines in respect of water quality, and it requires the water providers in this state to do a number of things.

One of them is to ensure that all the drinking water providers need to implement a risk management plan, presumably to set out a process or a procedure which they will follow to ensure that the water they provide not only reaches a certain standard but is maintained and able to be regularly checked. So, under this regulatory model, that would be imposed on SA Water (which provides about 94 per cent of the state's potable water) and some 500 other smaller providers. The rules are slightly different for them, especially in respect of the time periods for audit but, basically, they ought to have a plan.

In addition to that, the plans have to include the monitoring programs, that is, what they do to make sure that their water stays at a certain standard. There are certain incident protocols presumably for when some defect in the system is identified and for the reporting and the application of what is to be invoked in those circumstances. As part of these monitoring programs, there are to be incident protocols. The provider must also submit to the Department of Health those programs and protocols for approval. The minister tells us that the monitoring costs range between $55 and $130 a year; presumably that cost is to provider.

In addition to this framework, the bill will also—the minister claims—increase transparency, because it requires all providers to submit water quality results to the Department of Health, which can then provide those results to consumers. I assume from that that this information will be made available publicly and will fulfil the important role of being able to be examined and scrutinised by the public.

We are also told that SA Water currently provides water quality results on a monthly basis—I assume that is currently to the Department of Health—and that that protocol will continue. There are also to be audits and inspections for drinking water supplies, and the Department of Health is the body which will be responsible for approving those who are to be inspectors and auditors in this process.

The current position is that we have, I suppose, two main sources of protection for our water supplies. One is the Food Act 2001 and we also have what was the Public and Environmental Health Act—which also had a role in relation to water quality—which has recently been reviewed by this parliament.

It appears that local government will still retain some role in the administration of this new regulatory framework. I am not sure the extent of it, but what is missing in the minister's information to the parliament is not just the cost to the individual provider on an annual basis (that is, the fee that is paid to the department), but we also need to have a fair idea about what the cost is to the provider to actually undertake all these things—to actually prepare the plan and pay someone, if necessary, to do the assessments and the submissions for compliance.

The other thing missing from the information in this debate is that there is not one jot of information given by the minister as to the cost to administer this new regime. If it is an important thing for us to undertake, we should also balance that against whatever the cost is going to be. So, we should have disclosed to us a detailed assessment of the cost of administering this new regime. What is going to be in this financial year's budget to make provision for this when it is introduced, and what is the annual cost going to be to monitor it? Unless we have all that information, how can we, as a parliament, make an assessment about what else is to be done and if, in fact, it is the most appropriate area to consider?

So, what is the number of full-time equivalents that we need in the Department of Health to monitor this? Will there be any change in the number of personnel required in local government—will there be fewer or more? And we need to have the cost of training that goes with that.

The other matter I would like to comment on is that the minister outlines in his second reading explanation that there have been some serious outbreaks and incidents at an international and national level in our history generally, and that we need to ensure that we protect our South Australian population against such examples.

He refers to an incident in Sydney, which was well publicised at the time when, in 1998, three 'boil water' notices were issued over a period of several weeks following detection of suspected contamination of drinking water supply with cryptosporidium and giardia. That received national and international coverage, as I have said. The Sydney water supply ultimately incurred a cost of some $75 million due to the impacts of this incident.

There was also the very famous Walkerton incident in 2000 in Canada, and the occasion when some 403,000 people were contaminated with cryptosporidiosis from contaminated water in Milwaukee. When things go wrong, they can go very seriously wrong, and people's lives are at risk. It is curious to note that the minister omitted to mention that, early in 2007, we in South Australia actually had a circumstance where some 140 people had been infected within an eight-week period. There were 105 cases of cryptosporidium in just one week, which was alarming given that, in previous years, the total for the year was somewhere around 35.

The circumstances at that time were that the government was not open and transparent about what was happening with this. Sure, they put out a press release saying what the figures were but, clearly, if the government were going to be responsible in ensuring that the public knew exactly what was going on, even while they were actually trying to identify the source of where the cryptosporidium was developing, the health department needed to make it clear to the public exactly where it was coming from, whether it was in the drinking water or the swimming pools.

The public is entitled to know about that. It was irresponsible of the government simply to put out a media release, when warnings should have been put into schools, hospitals, public swimming pools, childcare centres and all the GPs in the area at least as to whether cryptosporidium was being reported. So, we have actually had a demonstrable circumstance here in our own state where hundreds of people were infected, and I suggest to the parliament that the minister was derelict in his duty and responsibility in ensuring that South Australians were properly warned and advised, but we are used to that, frankly.

I can recall an occasion when seven men had unprotected sex with a man who was known to the Department of Health and risked being contaminated with HIV. The minister's ultimate answer to this place was, 'Nobody told me; I wasn't told.' This was when the department had had repeated notice and when the South Australian Housing Trust—I cannot blame the current minister for that one; she is usually responsible for most things—also knew about it because he was living there.

They knew about the concern of a threat of a very serious contamination of innocent people in the community—in this case people who responded to an electronic invitation to have unprotected sex. It was a situation where there had been no disclosure of a notifiable disease by that person, so we know that the minister runs a million miles away when there is a circumstance that is a danger to the public. I am not, therefore, overly confident of relying on him to actually deal with it, but if the Department of Health—the very ones who have actually lapsed during these occasions—is going to be responsible for this new regulatory procedure, then it needs to get its act together. We need to have a minister who is going to make sure that they do this properly and that the Public Health Division of the Department of Health does it properly.

The other aspect I would like to refer to is the party that is the principal provider of water in South Australia; that is, SA Water—that great pillar of corporate integrity in this state which seems to have evaporated around its corporate veil. Nevertheless, let me say that this is the major provider, and the metropolitan area (except for those poor people up in Skye who the member for Morialta looks after) largely has to rely on the good management of SA Water.

I want to tell you how brilliant SA Water is when it comes to doing the right thing. In last year's annual report, which is available on the website, it was reported that the SA Water Corporation was charged with and found guilty of polluting the environment, causing material environmental harm pursuant to section 80(2) of the Environment Protection Act 1993. It pleaded guilty in the ERD Court and was convicted and fined a total of $30,000 and ordered to pay $130 to the Victims of Crime Fund. It related to the discharge of sediment from water tanks on the Adelaide to Mannum pipeline at Palmer.

So, the principal provider in South Australia is not without a bit of a messy record. It is not the first time it has been prosecuted or convicted. However, we need to understand that, whether it does something deliberately, as a mistake or has reckless disregard, it needs to be monitored. We need to have someone in charge of making sure that the water supply companies are doing things properly.

The Department of Health currently monitors SA Water. That is already happening. The Department of Health is going to be put in charge under this new scheme so one has to ask oneself the question as to whether we are actually increasing the standard of accountability and transparency to ensure that the public of South Australia are protected under this regime or not. I am not overjoyed and confident of that.

SA Water is not the only entity under scrutiny here. Some of our water supply (in particular the plumbing) is contracted out. Until 30 June this year, United Water has responsibility for the plumbing and distribution of water under a contract. The government has just signed a new contract effective from 1 July with a consortium known as Allwater (a $1.9 billion, 10-year contract with renewable terms) and a further contract either has been or is about to be signed to deal with the provision of maintenance and capital works between $0 and $11 million. That is what we are told.

However, SA Water has a job to do here, too. It is vested with the responsibility of monitoring people who have a contract to do these jobs—notwithstanding all the people in SA Water to monitor United Water. That is apart from the fact that they let slip that for six years they were apparently being overcharged or charged for things they should not have been and ended up in the Supreme Court to deal with it. I think we have a judgement for $13.8 million, and something else is still to come. Whether we will ever get the money or not, who knows? The company will disappear by 30 June so goodness knows if we will ever get our money back.

SA Water, the entity that provides water to us, is responsible for that contract. It had the responsibility to supervise it but, obviously, it did not and it has cost millions in losses to the people of South Australia. Regrettably, the Treasurer comes in here and talks about it and abuses other parties about it, but his government failed to ensure that proceedings were taken for years so that we even missed out on the interest.

The company was also prosecuted on 31 August 2010 for polluting and causing material environmental harm under section 80(2), and that related to discharging 40,000 litres of aluminium sulfate into the Yettie Creek.

Now, these people are not without a history and if we are, in fact, going to be serious about the quality of water that we drink, swim in, bathe in, wash in, whatever we are going to do in it, we need to make sure that that water is safe. If our stock drink it, if our pets drink it, if it is used to wash the car—these are all important things to be considered and it will need a lot more than this regulatory procedure.