Grievance Debate

DESALINATION PLANT

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:24): Today, we have asked the government a number of questions about the decision to double the size of the desalination plant. In answer to a question, the Premier stated that in Western Australia they built one desalination plant and then they decided to build another one and he stated that it was much more expensive. Can I tell the house that the second Western Australian desalination plant, which is the same size as the 100 gigalitre desalination plant built in South Australia, was built at a total cost of $1.4 billion, the price that South Australia was going to build a 50 gigalitre desal plant for and some $400 million lower than the price that South Australia is paying for a 100 gigalitre desal plant.

In total, the two desalination plants built in Western Australia (producing up to 145 gigalitres of desalinated water) cost less than $1.8 billion, which is less than the price of the desalination plant built in South Australia. Last week, we saw the Premier, in desperation, drop out two reports saying, 'This is why we took the decision,' that really dumb decision that was taken on 13 March 2009 to double the size of the desalination plant.

There are two reports: the WorleyParsons report, dated 23 June 2009, a month and a half later, and the KPMG report, dated 3 June, almost a month after the government made its decision. In fact, the KPMG report talks about the decision having been made. It has nothing to do with the decision to double the desalination plant, it is all about what you might do over the next 20 to 30 years if you continued to have problems with water supply in South Australia. The KPMG report, and I would invite members to get a hold of it and read it, is based on the data and assumptions given to KPMG by the government, principally by one Ms Robyn McLeod.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes; failed Victorian Labor candidate, a good friend of the current Prime Minister, and employed here at $300,000 a year in a job for the girls. That is what it was: a job for the girls. She had very limited expertise in water but she came here advising the government and it was on her advice that the government spent another cool $800 million on that dumb decision. It is a nonsense. The people of South Australia deserve a lot better. They deserve the government to come clean and release all of the documents pertaining to that decision because I can assure the house that I have read these two reports and they do not support the decision.

The WorleyParsons report, as I alluded to in a question today, is based on an assumption that water prices would increase by 8 per cent per year following 2008-09. We know that straight after the 2010 election water prices went up by 22 per cent. That is a fair bit more than 8 per cent. The following year it went up by 40 per cent. That is five times. The next year it went up by 25 per cent.

The WorleyParsons report does nothing to justify the decision. As I say, both reports are based on very flawed assumptions. The KPMG report is based upon the worst case climate change information that is available anywhere in the world, and that is what this government based its decision on, not to build the first 50 gigalitres but to double the size. We fully support the original decision, in fact the government was far too late in coming to it and that cost South Australians dearly.

The other point I would like to make is this. I asked the question, which the Treasurer answered, about the valuation of SA Water's assets. The Auditor-General's Report that was tabled today notes under 'other comprehensive income' for SA Water that $108 million is attributed mainly to the revaluation of assets. This government has been ripping off South Australian householders year in, year out, simply by revaluing upwards the assets of SA Water. That is a great pity, sir.

Time expired.