DESALINATION PLANT

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:17): My question is again to the Minister for Water. Will the minister confirm that households will pay at least $100 per year extra in their water bill simply to pay the $500 million profit to the builder of the desalination plant?

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Water.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (15:17): I love the way the opposition does its research. What it does, of course, is wake up in the morning and either read Adelaidenow or The Advertiser or sometimes the broadsheet, but that is a little more difficult for them to flip the pages. Basically, it is generally The Advertiser.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: You know what I found interesting about this morning's article in The Advertiser? On 12 February this year—I think it was on the front page, and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but on some pages within The Advertiser—there was an article—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: —I do—an article that talked about:

Adelaide's $1.8 billion desalination plant is in jeopardy amid a major dispute between SA Water and the builder. An SA Water report seen by The Advertiser states construction group—

Blah, blah, blah—will lose its profit. It is now, in fact, threatening the whole project. That was on 12 February. This morning, we woke up to an article that talks about another report that has been viewed by The Advertiser that says—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Cited.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Cited by The Advertiser—that says anything between $500 million plus in profit. One thing is for certain: they cannot both be right, but I will tell you what, they can both be wrong. I think that is the case.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: They can both be right.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, they can't both be right. What I found a bit confusing with the article this morning was that it was based on some facts and figures that quite simply were not, as I said, as correct as they might be. Now, I can go through, but I will just answer the question: no, Mitch, if you are still interested. He's not interested, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, you weren't listening.