WATER INDUSTRY BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 35 as amended passed.

Clauses 36 to 43 passed.

Clause 44.

Mr WILLIAMS: Clause 44 is entitled, 'Power to carry out work on land,' and it gives a whole host of powers to allow water entities to go onto land, to have access to land and to do the jobs that they need to do. The opposition is quite happy with that but, again, the minister makes the claim (and I heard him earlier in the day when we were debating the bill) that he wants a level playing field.

The reality is that subclause (23) states, 'Subsections (3)(b) and (7) do not apply in relation to SA Water.' To my mind, that means there is a conflict with the comment from the minister about wanting a level playing field—and he wonders why I am cynical about this third-party access regime. Subclause (3) provides:

Subject to this section, if an unauthorised entity seeks to enter public land under this section, the entity must—

and paragraph (b) states 'secure the authority's agreement to the carrying out of the work'. If subclause (23) stands that does not apply to SA Water; it applies to everybody else but not to SA Water. Similarly, subsection (7) provides:

(7) If a dispute arises between an authorised entity and the authority responsible for managing public land about whether work should be permitted under this section on the land or about the conditions on which work should be permitted on public land, either party to the dispute may refer the dispute to the Minister.

But that does not apply to SA Water. My question to the minister is: why don't these two subsections (3)(b) and (7) apply to SA Water, and how can he sustain his claim that he is trying to develop a level playing field?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question. As he said, the dispute resolution mechanism in subsection (7) relates to subsection (3)(b), from which SA Water is exempt. There is therefore no need for subsection (7) to apply to SA Water. I would say this in addition: SA Water is responsible to the Minister for Water and the River Murray, who is the minister responsible for administration of the bill.

It is not considered appropriate for a dispute between two parties to be elevated to the owner of only one of the parties, and this would be seen, in the government's view, as favouring SA Water. Also for the reasons that I have previously given to the house, being a public corporation, SA Water is subject to a much greater degree of public scrutiny than other water and sewerage providers. To get to the nub, for the member for MacKillop, for these reasons, SA Water has been excluded from the requirement to have unresolved disputes with responsible authorities escalated to the minister.

Mr WILLIAMS: I accept what the minister has told the house, and that is fine, but it does not provide us with a level playing field; there should be some other process. I accept what you are saying—that the minister is responsible for one side of the argument, and it is probably not fair that that minister become the arbiter—but if you want a level playing field, Minister, you have to have some mechanism to overcome that. You have to have some mechanism by which SA Water would have to go through the same processes as any other water entity.

I am quite happy for us to move on—I note the time–and to pass this clause as it stands, but I indicate to the minister that, in light of his answer, I will probably be seeking to move an amendment in the other place.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Without responding to the member for MacKillop now, what we will do is frame that response for the other place.

Clause passed.

Clauses 45 to 57 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.