Water Industry (Third Party Access) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for the Public Sector) (12:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Water is our most valuable resource, fundamental to our way of life, our economy and our environment. The millennium drought in the early 2000s challenged our traditional assumptions about the security of our existing supplies and highlighted the need for a longer term strategic approach to water security in South Australia.

In particular, our traditional reliance on a guaranteed minimum volume of flow into South Australia from the River Murray, under an agreement with other Murray Darling Basin States, was found to be vulnerable under severely reduced rainfall. In essence it never occurred to the State, from a water security perspective, that there could be situations where there is just not enough water in the system to allow for a 'guaranteed' level of water.

In response to the unprecedented drought conditions, the Government developed a long term water security plan for South Australia. Water for Good was released in June 2009 outlining its long-term strategy and actions needed to ensure safe, secure and reliable water supplies able to sustain continued economic and population growth. Water for Good is based around a number of core elements:

Diversifying water supplies;

Improving the way we use water;

Improving governance arrangements; and

Modernising the water industry through a new regulatory framework.

Progress with the implementation of Water for Good is reported annually and this report is made public and tabled in Parliament. In the most recent annual review, there had been significant progress in implementing actions, with 30 being completed, 50 on track and only 13 experiencing some minor delays.

A strong legislative base that provides sensible regulatory arrangements for the water and wastewater services sectors is a key foundation of the Government's approach to water sector reform.

The proclamation of the Water Industry Act 2012(the Act), a key action in Water for Good, marked a significant milestone in the Government's reform of the water industry in South Australia and marked the first major legislative reform for the water and wastewater services sector for decades. The Act provides a new legislative foundation to promote competition and drive more efficient and innovative service delivery.

The Act declared water to be a regulated industry under the Essential Services Commission Act 2002 and appointed ESCOSA as the economic regulator and licensing authority for retail water and sewerage services in South Australia. Other significant reforms to the sector include:

Avenues for future pricing reform;

Streamlining of technical regulation of the sector;

A commitment to ongoing water demand and supply planning;

The formalisation of SA Water's customer service standards through the SA Water customer charter and the standard customer contract;

The requirement for external reporting and monitoring of SA Water's performance and compliance;

The introduction of formal customer consultation requirements for SA Water's future regulatory determinations; and

Requiring audited regulatory accounts for SA Water.

In May 2013, ESCOSA released its first Revenue Determination in respect of water and sewerage retail services provided by SA Water for the 3 years to June 2016. ESCOSA also identified savings of about $300 million in SA Water's operational and capital expenditure over the three years period of the Determination. The Government subsequently reduced water prices by 6.4 per cent in the first year and limited increases to inflation in the following two years. This provided relief for consumers from the recent increases in water prices as a result of necessary investments in water security measures.

To build on these reforms and to satisfy the requirement of section 26 of the Water Industry Act, a process to establish a state based access regime was initiated with the release of a Report on Access to Water and Sewerage Infrastructure in February 2013.

An effective access regime will promote the economically efficient operation of, use of and investment in water and sewerage infrastructure and encourage greater competition in upstream and downstream markets, increase standards of service and security of supply, and provide longer-term downward pressure on prices.

The current policy framework allows SA Water to pursue opportunities, on appropriate commercial terms, arising from spare water transportation capacity within their water infrastructure (eg in the Barossa and Willunga). However, this framework does not apply on an industry wide basis, nor does it include transparent pricing and negotiation principles, disclosure requirements, and provisions for review and arbitration, if an agreement cannot be achieved. A legislated state based access regime will address these shortcomings in the current arrangements.

The Access Report set out a range of issues relating to the amendment of the Water Industry Act to provide a right to businesses to negotiate access to water and sewerage infrastructure services and invited feedback from industry participants and interested community members.

Following feedback on the Access Report, a consultation draft Water Industry (Third Party Access) Amendment Bill was tabled in Parliament in September 2013 along with an accompanying explanatory memorandum.

Six submissions were received in response to the Access Report. They were from Business SA, ESCOSA, SA Water, Alano Water, the Roxby Council and Adelaide City Council. Business SA, ESCOSA and SA Water also provided submissions to the exposure draft Bill.

Based on the Access Report, and with appropriate consideration being given to the public submissions received, the Water Industry (Third Party Access) Amendment Bill 2014 (the Bill) introduces a further major reform to the water industry. The Bill was initially introduced into Parliament on 4 December 2014 and is now being re-introduced as a result of the last Parliament being prorogued.

The Bill is the end result of a long and inclusive consultative process. Part of this consultation involved a protracted negotiation with the Commonwealth Government regarding the interaction of the proposed access arrangements and Commonwealth Water Charge Rules.

The Bill amends the Water Industry Act by inserting a new part 9A that provides a light handed negotiate/arbitrate framework for businesses to seek access to services provided by natural monopoly water infrastructure (e.g. transport services via SA Water's bulk water pipelines).

The Bill establishes access arrangements to SA Water's bulk water transport services. The Bill does not relate to retail services or bulk water resources. Given the current stage of development of the South Australian water industry, it would be premature to establish full retail competition.

The Bill amends the Water Industry Act to ensure that access seekers and infrastructure owner are not limited from negotiating commercial agreements outside of the provisions of the access regime. The Bill, as a safety net, confers rights on the access seeker in relation to negotiating access and imposing obligations on the infrastructure owner when the access seeker exercises those rights.

The Bill appoints ESCOSA as the regulator of a state based access regime for water. ESCOSA will be required to adopt a light handed regime of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the access regime. ESCOSA will be required to report to the Minister each year about the work carried out by the regulator under the access regime.

The adoption of a light handed regime that facilitates commercial negotiation and arbitration in a low cost manner is considered appropriate in an environment where access negotiations are likely to be infrequent and specific to the needs of the access seeker. This approach has been adopted in South Australia's certified legislative access regimes for railways (set out in the Railways (Operations and Access) Act 1997) and port services (set out in the Maritime Services Act 2000).

In an environment where access negotiations are likely to be frequent and the needs of the access seekers are common, then an access regime that involves prior determination and approval of access terms and conditions and associated prices is likely to be more cost effective for facility owner and the access seekers. This approach has been adopted for industries that have been vertically separated and subject to substantial economic reform, including the gas and electricity industries, where there is full retail contestability.

While important economic reforms to the water industry have been made in South Australia through the Water Industry Act, the water industry is not at the same stage of reform as the energy sector and such a heavy-handed approach cannot be justified. Interstate and international evidence shows that a gradual transition approach is more appropriate for introducing third party access regimes in an attempt to avoid unintended adverse outcomes and minimise potential costs to industry and general public.

The key to a well-balanced access regime is to promote greater competition while not disadvantaging SA Water customers broadly by, for example, facilitating private providers gaining access to infrastructure in the low-cost/high-revenue sections of the network, leaving SA Water's customers to bear the full costs of the high-cost/low-revenue sections.

The scope of the access regime established by the Bill includes all water infrastructure services that comply with clause 6(3)(a)(1) and (2) of the Competition Principles Agreement (CPA) and are significant to the South Australian economy. At this stage this would include SA Water's bulk water transport services. The access regime may apply to other services, such as water storages and treatment plants, to the extent that they are integral to the operation of the infrastructure services for which access is being sought (e.g. the transport services cannot be provided without passing through the water treatment plant).

The CPA requires that: wherever possible third party access to a service provided by means of a facility should be on the basis of terms and conditions agreed between the owner of the facility and the person seeking access. That is, to the extent possible, governments should avoid intervening in commercial negotiations between providers and access seekers.

The amended Water Industry Act will establish that nothing in the proposed legislation prevents a regulated operator from entering into an access contract with another person on terms and conditions agreed between the parties.

Water and sewerage infrastructure owned by water industry entities regulated under the Water Industry Act range from critical pipelines serving hundreds of thousands of people to local distribution networks serving less than one hundred. While the scope of the access regime should be broad in order to have consistent regulation across the South Australian water industry, it is not considered appropriate for the regime to be fully applied to all water infrastructure services.

The state based access regime will not be applied to community facilities, such as community waste management schemes and small water distribution systems, which are relatively small in scale and are unlikely to facilitate competition in dependent markets. Thus, it is considered that they do not meet the requirement of the CPA that the infrastructure be significant. Applying a formal third party access regime to these infrastructures would impose unnecessary costs and excessive administrative burdens on the owners of the infrastructure without any appreciable benefits being realised.

There is a range of water and sewerage infrastructure that does not easily fit into either of the categories described above (full application and not applied). Only some sections of Part 9A of the amended Water Industry Act relating to basic information requirements and reporting would apply to this infrastructure.

Over time, the significance of some infrastructure may increase and may then warrant full application of a state based access regime. But, at this stage the cost to the infrastructure service provider of complying with a state based access regime may not be justifiable.

The infrastructure operator will be required to provide information about access seekers to the regulator, and as part of its report to the Minister, ESCOSA will report on whether the access regime in relation to specific pieces of water or sewerage infrastructure should be extended.

ESCOSA will also be required to review the access regime established under Part 9A to ascertain whether the access regime should continue to apply to particular water infrastructure services in South Australia. ESCOSA will be required to conduct the review by 30 June 2019 and every five years thereafter. The report would be provided to the Minister and tabled in Parliament.

In an effective access regime, the right to negotiate will be supported by provisions to enforce that right. The Bill provides the access seeker the right to trigger an access dispute and commence binding arbitration after the regulator has first sought to resolve the dispute through conciliation.

The arbitrator will be appointed by ESCOSA and the decision of the arbitrator will be enforceable as if it were a contract between the parties.

South Australia is well placed in relation to its regulation of public health, environmental and safety standards and the community rightly expects the Government not to compromise these standards.

The Bill does not seek to alter existing frameworks in these areas and includes an explicit requirement that no decision taken by the regulator or arbitrator in relation to access to water infrastructure can override requirements or directions under the Safe Drinking Water Act 2011, the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, the Environmental Protection Act 1993, or other law or other legislative requirement relating to health, safety or the environment.

Charges made by water industry entities in South Australia, including SA Water and South Australian irrigation trusts, may be subject to Commonwealth water charge rules made under the Water Act 2007 (Cth).

The Commonwealth water charge rules appear intended to exclude urban water supply activities from their remit, however, the precise scope of the application of the Commonwealth regime is not easy to determine. There is potential for inconsistency between the state based access regime and the Commonwealth regime where both regimes apply to the same infrastructure operator.

The Bill avoids this regulatory uncertainty by allowing for the use of the provisions of Part 11A of the Water Act 2007 (Cth) to exclude or displace the operation of the Commonwealth water charge rules in the event that any such inconsistency arises. The use of the displacement clause brings with it some obligations to other stakeholders under existing intergovernmental agreements.

Negotiations with the Commonwealth are continuing to find an alternative solution which does not necessitate the use of these displacement provisions.

The use of the displacement clause will not be automatically triggered with the passage of the Bill and will only come into effect if an inconsistency arises. This provides the opportunity for continued dialogue with the Commonwealth.

The Government regards the establishment of a state based access regime for water infrastructure, certified effective, as a necessary further step in the ongoing reform of South Australia's water industry.

Unlike some other industries subject to access regimes, the delivery of water and wastewater services presents some challenging social equity considerations including affordability, health and safety, as well as environmental issues. Careful consideration and incremental application of any access arrangements is necessary to ensure that unintended outcomes are minimised.

The amendments to the Water Industry Act contained in the Bill provide for the establishment of a light-handed access regime the Government considers appropriate given the current stage of development of the State's water industry. The access regime will be monitored and regularly reviewed by the regulator and, where appropriate, it can be adjusted to suit changing circumstances.

While it may take some time to fully realise their benefits, the extensive reforms implemented by the Government establish a foundation for the development of a competitive, efficient, innovative and safe water services sector so crucial to the well-being of the whole South Australian community.

I commend the Bill to Members.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

3—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Water Industry Act 2012

4—Amendment of section 3—Objects

An additional object is included in section 3 of the Act for the purposes of proposed Part 9A.

5—Insertion of section 5A

This clause proposes to insert new section 5A:

5A—Provisions related to operation of Part 9A

The Governor may, by proclamation, declare the extent to which Part 9A will apply in relation to specified water infrastructure or sewerage infrastructure (or specified classes of such infrastructure) or specified infrastructure services (or specified classes of such services). A proclamation may limit the operation of the access regime. It will also be possible for the Governor, by proclamation, to activate a Commonwealth water legislation displacement provision in relation to Part 4 Division 1 of the Water Act 2007 of the Commonwealth if this becomes necessary.

6—Repeal of section 26

Section 26 of the Act imposed certain requirements on the Minister relating to preparations for a third party access regime. This clause repeals the section.

7—Insertion of Part 9A

This clause proposes to insert new Part 9A:

Part 9A—Third party access regime

Division 1—Preliminary

86A—Interpretation

Definitions are set out for the purposes of the Part.

86B—Application

The access regime will apply to operators of water infrastructure or sewerage infrastructure, and infrastructure services to the extent specified by proclamation.

The access regime does not (and cannot) apply in relation to infrastructure operated by an irrigation infrastructure operator that may be subject to water charge rules under Part 4 Division 4 of the Water Act 2007 of the Commonwealth (whether or not such rules have been made in relation to the infrastructure (or in relation to any service that may be provided in connection with the infrastructure)).

Division 2—Regulator

86C—Appointment of regulator

The Essential Services Commission of South Australia is the regulator.

86D—Report to Minister

The regulator must report to the Minister on an annual basis.

Division 3—Information to facilitate access proposals

86E—Segregation of accounts and records

Special accounting requirements will apply in order to assist in the implementation of the access regime.

86F—Information brochure

A regulated operator will be required to provide, on application, an information brochure giving terms and conditions on which access may be provided.

86G—Specific information to assist proponent to formulate proposal

A regulated operator will be required to give a person with a proper interest in making an access proposal detailed information about specified matters. A charge may be made for information provided under the proposed section.

86H—Information to be provided on non-discriminatory basis

Information is to be provided to persons interested in making access proposals on a non-discriminatory basis.

Division 4—Negotiation of access

86I—Access proposal

A person who wants access to regulated infrastructure or to vary an existing access contract in a significant way or to a significant extent may put an access proposal to the regulated operator.

86J—Duty to negotiate in good faith

The respondents to an access proposal are required to negotiate in good faith.

86K—Existence of dispute

The circumstances in which an access dispute exists are set out.

Division 5—Conciliation

86L—Settlement of dispute by conciliation

If a dispute is referred to the regulator, the regulator must, in the first instance, seek to resolve the dispute by conciliation (except in certain circumstances).

86M—Voluntary and compulsory conferences

The regulator may call voluntary and compulsory conferences of the parties to the dispute to attempt to resolve the dispute.

Division 6—Reference of dispute to arbitration

86N—Power to refer dispute to arbitration

The regulator may appoint an arbitrator and refer a dispute to arbitration.

86O—Application of Commercial Arbitration Act 2011

The Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 applies to an arbitration.

86P—Principles to be taken into account

The principles which an arbitrator must take into account are set out.

86Q—Parties to the arbitration

The parties to an arbitration are defined.

86R—Representation

A party may be represented by a lawyer or, by leave, another representative.

86S—Participation by other parties

The Minister and the regulator may participate in an arbitration.

86T—Arbitrator's duty to act expeditiously

The arbitrator must proceed with the arbitration as quickly as possible.

86U—Hearings to be in private

The proceedings are to be in private unless all parties agree to public proceedings. The arbitrator may give directions about who may be present.

86V—Procedure on arbitration

An arbitrator is not bound by technicalities or the rules of evidence. The arbitrator may obtain information on matters relevant to the dispute in any way the arbitrator thinks appropriate.

86W—Procedural powers of arbitrator

The arbitrator has power to direct procedure including delivery of documents and discovery and inspection of documents.

The arbitrator may obtain expert reports and may proceed in the absence of any party given notice of the proceedings.

The arbitrator may engage a lawyer to give advice on the conduct of the arbitration and to assist with the drafting of the award.

86X—Giving of relevant documents to the arbitrator

A party to an arbitration may give the arbitrator a copy of all documents (including confidential documents) the party considers to be relevant to the dispute.

86Y—Power to obtain information and documents

The arbitrator may require information and documents to be produced and may require a person to attend to give evidence.

Information need not be given or documents need not be produced where the information or contents are subject to legal professional privilege or tend to incriminate the person concerned of an offence. The person concerned is required to give grounds of objection to providing information or producing documents.

86Z—Confidentiality of information

The arbitrator is given power to impose conditions limiting access to or disclosure of information or documents.

86ZA—Proponent's right to terminate arbitration before an award is made

A proponent has the right to terminate an arbitration on notice to the other parties, the arbitrator and the regulator.

86ZB—Arbitrator's power to terminate arbitration

Where the dispute is trivial, misconceived or lacking in substance, or where the proponent has not negotiated in good faith, the arbitrator may terminate the arbitration.

86ZC—Time limit for arbitration

An award must be made within the period of 6 months from the date on which the dispute is referred to arbitration. However, the period does not include time awaiting compliance with orders of the arbitrator for the provision of information or documents.

86ZD—Formal requirements related to awards

Before an award is made a draft must be circulated to the Minister, the regulator, the parties and each designated agency to enable representations to be made.

An award must be in writing and must set out the reasons for it. If access is to be granted, the award must set out the conditions.

A copy of the award must be given to the Minister, the regulator, the parties and each designated agency.

86ZE—Consent awards

An award can be made by consent if the arbitrator is satisfied that the award is appropriate in the circumstances.

86ZF—Proponent's option to withdraw from award

After an award is made, the proponent has 7 days within which to withdraw from it. If the proponent withdraws, the award is rescinded and the proponent is precluded from making an access proposal within 2 years unless the regulator agrees. The regulator may impose conditions on such agreement.

86ZG—Termination or variation of award

An award may be terminated or varied if all parties affected by the award agree. The provisions of Part 9A relating to an access proposal and arbitration apply to a proposal to terminate or vary an award (or a dispute arising out of such a proposal).

86ZH—Costs

The costs of the arbitration are at the discretion of the arbitrator except where the proponent terminates an arbitration or elects not to be bound. In that case, the proponent bears the costs in their entirety.

86ZI—Contractual remedies

An award is enforceable as if it were a contract between the parties.

86ZJ—Appeal on question of law

An appeal to the Supreme Court is allowed only on a question of law. An award or decision of an arbitrator cannot be challenged or called into question except by appeal under the proposed section.

86ZK—Injunctive remedies

The Supreme Court may grant injunctive remedies if required to enforce compliance with an award.

86ZL—Compensation

The Supreme Court may order compensation to any person where there has been a breach of an award.

Division 7—Related matters

86ZM—Confidential information

The regulated operator is required to ensure that confidential information (which is defined) remains confidential.

The regulator may, however, disclose confidential information to the Minister or the public if it is in the public interest to do so.

86ZN—Access by agreement

The proposed section clarifies that the new Part does not prevent a regulated operator entering into an access contract with another person on terms and conditions agreed between the parties.

86ZO—Copies of access contracts to be supplied to regulator

Copies of access contracts must be supplied to the regulator on a confidential basis.

86ZP—Regulated operator's duty to supply information and documents

A regulated operator must give the regulator specified information or copies of documents relating to the regulated operator's water/sewerage service business.

86ZQ—Unfair discrimination

A regulated operator must not unfairly discriminate in relation to access to regulated infrastructure. A regulated operator must not unfairly discriminate between entities in the terms and conditions on which it provides access to regulated infrastructure.

86ZR—Review of Part

The regulator must review the Part within the last year of each prescribed period (which is defined).

8—Amendment of section 90—Consultation between agencies

This amendment is consequential.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:04): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker on the Water Industry (Third Party Access) Amendment Bill and I will be moving some amendments at the committee stage. This bill aims to provide a legislated regime for third-party access to South Australian water and sewerage infrastructure. I note that late last year the former head of the Essential Services Commission of South Australia said that households were collectively paying up to $150 million a year too much for water because the state Treasury forecast a higher annual demand for water than ESCOSA. I think it has been reasonably well documented right around this state over many years this government's failure to stop its addiction to SA Water's price gouging to prop up their coffers, and it has become more and more of an addiction as the years go by.

Following the revelations that the state government was price gouging in water services, the state Liberals demanded that the Weatherill Labor government conduct an independent inquiry into water pricing. A third-party access regime should be designed to enable other players in the water industry to utilise, for a price, an existing supplier's infrastructure to supply services, and therefore provide some level of competition.

I am sure every person in this chamber would understand that competition is healthy. Competition is usually a mechanism for bringing competition into a marketplace, driving prices lower, making the price of that commodity more competitive and, hence, driving the price down for the end user, but that simply has not happened. As it currently stands, SA Water has a monopoly on providing potable water and sewerage services for a huge proportion of city and country consumers, and the majority of industry in South Australia.

Support for a robust third-party access scheme has been a key platform for the Liberal Party over successive elections and continues to be that way. Competition in the water industry is a requirement under the national competition principles. Previously, the Weatherill government ignored its own independent pricing regulator (ESCOSA) to adopt a robust third-party access scheme for SA Water's infrastructure, which would provide relief for all SA Water customers.

Competition in the provision of water would drive down the price of water. However, companies selling water would need access to SA Water's pipe network at a fair price. I think everyone acknowledges that anyone who is in business does need to make a profit and they do need to perform maintenance and upgrades to their infrastructure, but what we are seeing is a continual gouging of the price of water in South Australia. Every South Australian, whether they be rich or poor, are paying for the government's addiction to the high cost of water in South Australia.

Competition in the provision of water would drive down the price of water. However, companies that are looking to profit from gaining third-party access to water infrastructure would need to be regulated. I will touch on some of those competitors as I get into my contribution, but there are many water providers that are providing competition indirectly to SA Water. I think it would be only right that we look further into how South Australian householders and, just as importantly, how industry and irrigators can access that water as a third party, and prosper, create jobs and make South Australia a better place to do business.

The majority of our exports are driven by the need for water, and it has to be competitive water. When I say 'driven by needing water'—whether it is for growing food, for watering animals, for hygiene, for industry, for processing or for cleaning—we all in some way, shape or another need water. In any industry, the workers need to drink water, let's face it, so the cost of water in every sense is having an impact on South Australia's economy.

The proposed legislation before us basically leaves it up to SA Water to decide how much other parties pay to access its infrastructure. It would enable other players in the industry to utilise an existing supplier's infrastructure (most likely SA Water) to provide services, thereby providing a level of competition. In theory, bulk water has been able to be purchased through trade since the introduction of water licensing.

The most notable scheme is run by Barossa Infrastructure Ltd, and I am sure the member for Schubert would take a lot of pride in their great water delivery network. They are also a member of a group that I once chaired, the South Australian Murray Irrigators. Their example of putting in their own infrastructure and accessing water and storage is second to none, and I think it is a proud platform that the wine industry, in particular, and some horticulture rely on, particularly in the Barossa Valley and surrounding districts.

It has enabled them to be part of the 21^st century. As many of us would know, a lot of the Barossa and outlying districts, once upon a time, were dry grown. Some of it was supplemented by underground water, and that created problems, particularly in very hot weather and heatwaves with very hot winds. The other extreme is frost and weather that is detrimental to the longevity of those commodities, particularly the vines in their early stages of maturity.

Barossa Infrastructure provides approximately 6,000 megalitres of untreated River Murray water to irrigate, as I said, predominantly wine grapes, but we must remember that this scheme would not have happened if it were not for former water minister John Olsen driving it through SA Water. I think he has left a long-lasting legacy in South Australia and it has helped establish the Barossa as a more sustainable wine growing region and we have been able to highlight some of the world's best iconic wines.

We have realised that we cannot just rely on dry grown product. We also have to supplement it to create a more uniform product so that everyone knows, when they open their favourite bottle of wine, it has uniformity and will please the pallet. Every time you open a bottle, it is consistent and it excites those passionate wine lovers because they know they are going to get a quality product every time they pop a cork or twist the Stelvin cap.

I guess examples of scenarios which are not third-party access include the Salisbury council wetlands and the aquifer storage and recharge. It is not actually third-party access because the Salisbury council installed its own pipe network system to service customers. Similar situations exist in and around the River Murray where there is private infrastructure, where there is also not third-party access, because that has been built especially for the customers and not through the SA Water network.

I will touch on some of those businesses that do a great job. I would not say it beggars belief, but the cost of having water supplied through the SA Water network is $3.32, thereabouts, and that price is going up. Some of the water suppliers are the CIT, the RIT and particularly some of the BOOT schemes (obviously, the Gawler and Virginia reworked water). It is very noticeable and I think it is great to see. It is long overdue that that system is going to be extended. Nothing makes me more agitated and disappoints me more than to see any form of water, whether it be in a primary treated situation or natural runoff, flowing out to sea. Not only is it an opportunity lost, not only is it an economic platform being let go, but it also causes environmental degradation of both seagrasses and sea life, and it is bad practice to see opportunity slipping through our hands.

Again, in talking about the bill and the Central Irrigation Trust, which I believe has about 10 districts and really is a leader in water supply and the continual upgrade of their infrastructure, it is also about being able to supply a product at a fair and reasonable price. It is not treated, but in many cases where SA Water networks supply water to primary production—and I know that in my electorate a number of livestock owners have either sold or got out of the industry because they cannot afford to pay those outrageously high water prices, particularly for watering livestock and the hygiene and cleaning of dairies—we have to remember that supplying treated water is unviable in primary production.

I have done a bit of research on, particularly, the Woolpunda scheme up in the Riverland, which is situated between Waikerie and Kingston-on-Murray. It is a water treatment plant that supplies hundreds of outlets, hundreds of farmers who in one way, shape or another need that water, whether they are spraying crops, watering their livestock, turning on a tap in their piggeries, dairies or businesses, and every time they turn that tap on it costs them $3.32 per kilolitre, and it is simply not sustainable.

We also need to recognise the Renmark Irrigation Trust; of course, a private diverter. They are probably one of the prime examples of how water can be pumped through private infrastructure and delivered on farm, and the cost of water shows you the benefit those private diverters have over a farmer who is reliant on the SA Water network. It is not totally comparing apples with apples because the SA Water network is treated water. With the private diverters, there are the irrigation trusts, the BIL scheme and the BOOT scheme. Obviously that is secondary treated water so it is a product that is a shandy with, in most instances, underground water, and they are still competitive.

When we look at the Clare and Gilbert Valley irrigators watering vineyards and, again, we look at livestock producers right across the SA Water network, it is becoming more and more uncompetitive for them to turn on a tap to water their livestock, to water their needs—as I said, their piggeries, their dairies, their feedlots. For us to be competitive and to be able to have an economic platform to drive our economy, we simply need to make it more appropriate, and these primary producers, and industry in many cases, need that third-party access.

There are some who would say—particularly SA Water, particularly the current state government—that this is something that they will not entertain. I say to them that they need to get off the drug. That drug is the reliance on people in South Australia paying the highest water prices in the country. We are uncompetitive in providing water for primary production, and so how on earth are we going to be winners now that we are entering more of a global market? We are seeing free trade agreements—the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement was recently signed—and I congratulate minister Robb on doing outstanding work.

I think, as the current federal Treasurer has said, he will probably be one of the most successful trade ministers in Australia's history, getting those trading partnership agreements through and giving every Australian the opportunity to grow produce, to put it onto an international market at a competitive price. We are not constricted by tariffs or high duties. We are not constricted by other countries that are putting barriers in front of our traders, particularly in South Australia.

However, if we look at the national picture, I think South Australia is punching above its weight. What we do in South Australia we do well but we are being priced out of the markets, particularly with being competitive. It is not just the cost of water, it is not just the cost of power; whether it is regulation, WorkCover, payroll tax, the land tax or any of these, we are the highest taxed state in the country. Water is just a part of it, and I think that having third party access is going to help us be more competitive and it is also going to help us deal with this unemployment issue, the economic issue. South Australia is one the rust-bucket states in the country, and it is not about the opposition talking down South Australia. It is about the opposition giving the punter, every South Australian, the real information.

Most South Australians are becoming sick and tired of the spin that they continually get, and that spin is that everything is alright, South Australia is a great state. Yes, it is a great state, but it is competitively at a disadvantage to every other state in South Australia. Why is our unemployment at 8.1 per cent and rising? Why is Tasmania, which was always at the bottom of the pack, at 6.5 per cent and declining? We look with envy at immigration right around this great country and we look at the combined Western Australian, Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian immigration numbers—320,000 new immigrants into those states combined. Obviously that immigration coming into the state is creating economic activity, it is creating opportunity and for that to happen they need to be competitive, and they are.

We look at South Australia, ACT, Northern Territory and Tasmania, and immigration into those states has been a paltry 20,000, and I really do think that that tells a story. Why aren't people coming to South Australia? We are not competitive. Why aren't people coming to South Australia? Because it is the dearest place in the country to do business. Why aren't people coming to South Australia? Because the other states have more to offer. The opportunities are growing. On a couple of recent trips I have done around the country, I have seen that the primary production is just booming.

We look at investors. They go to government looking for assistance, not actually for monetary assistance but looking for regulatory assistance, looking for reform, power, water, and connections, and those governments are saying, 'How can we help you? Please come in.' How can we bring them into our state of South Australia to be competitive? When they come to South Australia it is, 'Fill out these forms.' They fill 100 to 200 pages of forms and then the bills start rolling in. 'This is what it is going to cost you to connect up the power. This is what it is going to cost you for water. This is what it is going to cost you to do business, whether it is WorkCover, payroll tax, land tax, the regulatory burden.'

I have had many businesses that have looked at coming to the Riverland and they simply said, 'This is too hard.' Off they go to Victoria or New South Wales. They have the water security, they have cheap water, cheaper power. They do not have the regulatory burden and they just do not have a government that does not have the will to invite them in, sit them down and work out how they are going to support that business to come into the state, and that is exactly the same footprint as having that third party access to water.

I notice that the Minister for Regional Development's electorate encompasses the Clare Valley and Gilbert Valley areas. It almost feels like he has been sitting on his hands when it comes to gaining third-party access for those irrigators. Many of them are frustrated and many of them are uncompetitive, yet it appears that the once Independent, now Labor, minister has been almost told to sit down and, 'We will deal with this when we deal with it.' They do not say whether it is going to be this year, next year or next century. There just does not appear to be anything of substance happening.

We hear a lot of spin about third-party access into the Clare Valley, but we obviously need storage. We need those businesses to be able to access water through a third party which can make them more competitive. At the moment, they cannot afford to pay those huge costs of putting water into those vineyards because, as we all know, the commodity prices in the wine industry are very low at the moment.

We are not just competing with other districts in South Australia, nor are we competing on a national level: we are competing on a world stage. Yes, South Australian wines are by far the best wines in Australia, region by region, but when we talk about competing on a world stage, where we have the large consumption, where we have large need for premium wine, South Australia is up there asking a huge premium because, in South Australia, there is a huge cost in producing that premium product.

We are at a disadvantage when it comes to competing for a similar product from any country all over the world. Whether it be in Europe, whether it be in the US, whether it be New Zealand, we are top of the pack when it comes to costs and bottom of the pack when it comes to being able to find efficiencies and the cost of doing business.

The third-party access water concept was first mooted by the Labor Party through Water for Good. I think, back in 2010, 2011 or 2012, this paper was brought forward, and it anticipated that a scheme would be in place by 2015. The Water Industry Act 2012 made some minor progress by requiring that a report be undertaken prior to the bill being drafted.

We know that South Australian water prices, as I have said, are absolutely through the roof. Primary producers are sick of feeling the effects, particularly here in South Australia, of their responsibility for paying the highest prices for having water delivered and also the most expensive prices for water to be supplied to their gate.

SA Water is a government monopoly making massive profits. As I said, this government is addicted, absolutely addicted, to price gouging within the water industry: the water supply and the water delivery network here in South Australia. They are not prepared to look seriously at water, particularly delivery. When we talk about the cost of water, it is not just about the cost of water. It is about supplying the water, it is about the delivery of water and, of course, it is also about the sewerage component that has a huge bearing on that cost of water.

Why is it that the government continues just to flout the prosperity of this state? As I said, the addiction is holding the state back in many ways. It is not just about primary production: it encapsulates just about every South Australian in one way or another. We look at some of the great export opportunities at the moment. Whether it be through livestock, whether it be through export meat, whether it be through live trade or frozen beef products, they all consume a lot of water and, at the moment, South Australia is the highest costing jurisdiction in this country. I do not know what the cost of water is in other jurisdictions but, in many cases, we are now relying significantly on South Australian beef exports to underpin our economy.

Starting right from the beginning with the calves, they need water to grow, they need water for feed, and they need water when they are put into the processing plant. We need water for hygiene, and we need water to keep that processing infrastructure alive, yet the whole way along it is just a multiplication of the high cost of water.

Whether it is about the cost of giving that animal water to drink, whether it is the cost of growing the feed or putting them in a feedlot to keep them growing and make them one of the best pieces of beef carcass that the world can offer, it really does add up. Then, of course, we get to the processing side of it. The cost of running an abattoir is growing out of control. We all know that abattoirs require high hygiene levels. Abattoirs also require a large amount of water, and this is just another example of how the high cost of doing business in South Australia it holding us back.

Many primary producers are not only struggling with high water prices, but they are also paying the full tote odds of utilising that infrastructure. One of the lowlights in my electorate is the SA Water's Woolpunda pumping scheme. It is a treated water plant that pumps water through a huge network. For those of who you do not know, Woolpunda is between Waikerie and Kingston-on-Murray. It is on the Sturt Highway, and pumps water directly from the river. It pumps out to a huge network, including Qualco, Sunlands and Waikerie. It goes all the way up to Kingston, out to Loxton, and goes all the way out through some of that Mallee country. The water is provided to farmers and a lot of the farming districts for livestock, spraying and the day-to-day running of those businesses.

Recently, I was taken out to the end of the line at a place near Qualco, Sunlands, which I guess you would say would be the north-west of the Riverland. There were two outlets pouring treated water out onto the ground. I asked the farmer, 'What is going on here?' and he said, 'We tell SA Water, they come out and have a look, and they let it go.' SA Water's reasoning for having an open-ended pipeline running out onto the ground is, 'It gives the animals something to drink.' I have never heard anything more absurd in all my life.

To give the animals something to drink, it is called a ballcock and a trough; it is not called an open pipe running on the ground, soaking away to waste huge amounts of water. Not only is it just water running out onto the ground, it is treated water for which farmers are paying $3.32 a kilolitre. I think it just outrageous that something like that can be let go. Yes, it has been something that I have raised with SA Water, and it is something that I have raised with the previous water minister, but it is something that has just continued to go on and on.

By my reckoning, this just highlights that SA Water are prepared to rest on their laurels while they are making hundreds of millions of dollars, and let this small amount of water run out. I would estimate from the way that it was running out that there may be 100 megalitres out of each outlet. Do your sums: there are 1,000 kilolitres in a megalitre; $3.32 a kilolitre times by 100 megalitres, for two of those outlets in close proximity. That is the sort of money that is running out onto the ground. That is just another example of what we are facing with a government that is more focused on the profit bottom line than it is on those efficiencies.

As an irrigator for 25-odd years, I have had to find efficiencies and savings in every way, shape or form, whether it is about putting in state-of-the-art pumping facilities, whether it is about putting in new-age pipes, whether it is about reducing friction, whether it is about reducing energy, or whether it is about reducing the start-up of energy. Many of you might understand that one of the serious problems with pumping water, particularly in a lot of the irrigation districts, is that they are on high country.

To pump water up onto high country means that you need to pump at an increased head, which means that every metre that you pump up, you need an extra pound of pressure to substantiate the pressure at the end of your pipe, whether it be a filter or whether it be that filtration that leads onto drip or sprinkler irrigation; in some cases, it is pivot sprinklers. You need a lot of pressure to get up the cliff or to get up onto that high country, and that is where we have had to find efficiencies. But to find efficiencies, it has come at a huge cost not only to irrigators, irrigation trusts, private diverters and to all water providers. It has been shown that it works for some, but it does not apply to others, and I make reference to the open pipes at Woolpunda.

I am not saying that it is happening anywhere else but, if it is happening in that district, it must be happening elsewhere, which would mean those water networks would have that kind of waste and that kind of burden put on the system. Let's face it, all of you would know that, if you have an open pipe, with water running out onto the ground, you are losing pressure. So, those farms that come before that network will have efficiency losses because they are going to have to leave their valves on to fill up their tanks. In hot weather, you will have livestock standing at a trough while the water dribbles into the trough because it cannot keep up. Every trough has a demand, but by the same token, you have an open-ended pipe that continues to make everyone else on that network suffer.

With respect to installing a third-party access, giving the opportunity for third-party access into a network, if it is using the SA Water network, that is great. If it is using a third-party pipe that comes away from SA Water, in many instances that would mean that you would have to put in some form of storage so that you could pump that water on demand. As I have said, in many instances people do have to put storage in. For some, they can put in a network of tanks, whether it be above ground or below ground tanks, because that is probably the most efficient way to store any form of water. Evaporation is an irrigator's worst friend. The loss from evaporation creates salinity and it creates huge loss, and I have already referred to the $3.32 treated water that is put into storage or put into a trough.

Let's face it, whether it is a trough, lake, river or an open tank, no matter what sort of water storage or water use you have in a climate such as the Riverland, for example, we lose between 1.2 and 1.7 metres a year. The bigger the surface of the water, such as a dam, you are going to lose about 1½ metres out of that dam without using a drop, simply because of evaporation. That applies to every other storage, whether it be a trough that water sits in or a tank that water is stored in or whether it be a river or wetlands, and we look at all forms of water storage.

One of the great disappointments I have had with this current government is their lack of willingness to address evaporation and, in many ways, the lack of regulators that are put on wetlands. Yes, there are some wetlands, backwaters and creeks that have regulators on them, but sadly most of that infrastructure has been put there by the federal government. The state government's will to put some of their own skin in the game and look after how they deal with water loss is something that is a bugbear of mine.

Obviously, we have huge wetlands. Let us be clear, the river system here in South Australia is the delta of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is the delta. It is the flat country. It is where our rivers are shallow, they are wide. The difference is that in the high country the rivers are very deep, they have a lot more trees and less evaporation, and the rivers are much narrower, so they are a much more efficient way of storing water as opposed to down here, particularly in South Australia.

I think that the delta essentially starts from the area Euston to Robinvale—near where the Darling and the Murray meet together, that is essentially where the delta is coming from. That delta is the start of huge evaporation. Once that water comes into South Australia, historically it has not been South Australia's problem; it has just been a national problem. It was once the responsibility of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, but now the authority is managing the way that we deal with putting flows down the river.

I must say that, over a number of years, the efficiencies have led to less evaporation and less water being purged down the river for little environmental gain; but when, of course, we look at the drought, any part of the river below Lock 1 suffered a huge loss. There was huge disappointment. There were salinity issues. There were acid sulphate issues. There was a lot of death. There was a lot of unusable water, particularly in the lower reaches of the river.

However, above Lock 1 most of those pool levels were all at pool level. People would come up to the Riverland and say, 'Oh, you know, this drought's a terrible thing,' but they would get up there and say, 'I can't believe it. There's water in the river. We were led to believe that there was no water in the river.' I think that was something that the government did grapple with for a long time when it was talking about drought watch, just like it was dealing with flood watch. And any time you send a message of drought or flood it raises people's alarm bells and they think that if it is drought watch the river is dry and if it is flood watch the river is overflowing and you cannot get into the place.

What it meant was that, while we were dealing with drought watch, those communities all suffered terribly. As an irrigator, as I was for 25 years, I had to give up a large percentage of my livelihood. I gave up all bar 18 per cent of my water allocation, and I will explain a little bit about allocations. In most cases, an irrigator, a primary producer, has an allocation of water assigned to a parcel of land, and that parcel of land will have adequate water to grow the crop that we choose. In many cases, we look at wine grapes, seven to eight megalitres a hectare; we look at citrus, 10 to 12 megalitres a hectare; we look at almonds, upwards of 15 plus megalitres a hectare.

We need that sort of water to keep those plantings alive and we need that sort of water to keep them into production. So, when you have 100 per cent of your water needed to keep those perennial crops alive—trees, vines, permanent crops—and suddenly you are given 18 per cent of your allocation, what are you going to do? What decisions are you going to make—either to keep your trees alive or are you going to keep them into production? Well, sadly, many irrigators had to let parts of their orchard die.

In a lot of cases, it particularly affected the Greeks and Italians I used to deal with. As I said, I was the chair of the South Australian Murray Irrigators and that group represented all irrigators in South Australia who diverted water from the Murray; so, it was not just about river communities. Obviously, a lot of water is piped away from the river, so there were communities in Clare, there were communities in the Barossa, there were communities in the South-East, there were communities all around certain parts of productive areas of the state who were just bamboozled that their asset, their 100 per cent allocation, had been cut to 18 per cent; so, they were having to almost let a part of their family die.

Just understand that for a family that plants and nurtures a patch of trees, a block of vines or a paddock of almonds it is almost a cultural thing—they put in the trees or vines as rootlings and then they water them, fertilise them and let them grow. It is about it being part of their family: they raise them over the years until they come out of infancy and into production and all of a sudden they are starting to peel fruit off these trees and vines that have been in the family for 10, 20, 30 or 50 years in some cases,

When you are told that you have to let part of your property die, it is like letting part of your family die, and that is something that really did ring a bell, particularly in that first instance when restrictions hit home. People were dealing with a 60 per cent allocation and having to lease in some water if they had to. Sometimes they would go away and find efficiencies, but to find efficiencies is costly. To find efficiencies is, again, going to the bank, looking for more money and looking for how they can keep that property alive. As I said, it is almost like keeping part of their family alive to make sure that that family is providing them with income and keeping their family together, keeping people employed and keeping those communities alive.

Sadly, there are still a lot of scars left from the drought and a lot of scars left from the way that governments I say negotiated. In many instances, when I came down to this place as an irrigator and a farmer and met with my local member and the then premier, I put a position paper to him on, if you like, a HECS-style scheme of finance so that these irrigators could remain in the game. They were not asking for a handout, they were not asking for something for free; what they were asking for was for government to provide them with low-cost finance, low-interest finance, so that they could remain in the water market, actually put food on their table and produce the food that underpins our economy here in South Australia.

I do give it to the government, who said, 'For one year, we will provide some sustainability into that sector and we will provide you with a calculated amount of water.' They did that for one year: the drought went for 10. They thought they would provide some water for one year and then hang them out to dry for the next eight years. That was the telling tale. Where the government went wrong was they did not provide people with any vision and they did not provide people with any real hope. They strung them along, gave them a little bit of water to keep their plantings alive for one year and then the next year they were on their own. Again, that is about the lack of understanding about what water means to primary production and our state's economy.

Again, as an irrigator, I had to make a decision. I had a holding of vineyard and I was a private diverter, so I had to go out to the water market and lease in water at huge cost because, as we all know, of supply and demand. When we are in a drought, there is a smaller amount of supply and there is a large amount of uncertainty. To do that, it cost my business a significant amount of money: many years of profits were simply consumed in a matter of months in entering that water market. I had a citrus property at Renmark, and I made the decision that I was going to lease in some water but that I was also going to cull some of my orchard. To do that, I would start with the least productive area and slowly pull out trees, until I got to the point where I could not justify continuation of tree removal, so that I would have less water usage.

It also gave me the opportunity to try to futureproof the water requirements for that property. The long-range forecast was that El Niño was still here, still biting us, and it was made very clear by the government that, after giving us one year's help, they would wipe their hands of us. As long as people in Adelaide were given the opportunity to turn on the tap and out came the water, the government were happy. Let us be fair about this: the current government's constituent base is here in Adelaide. If they were fair dinkum about keeping their constituent base alive, they would have been better negotiating water into the market.

I hear some rumblings from the other side. I am sure that if you had a few trees or a few bushes die in your garden, that was no heartache. There might have been a bit of heartache if one of your favourite trees died and tipped over, but you did not lose. You still picked up your wage every week. The people on the river—the people who were sustaining water here in South Australia—gave up their water for people in Adelaide to be able to turn on a tap and have water come out.

We were put on restrictions in Adelaide, but it was not about a quantity restriction, it was about when you could water: what time of the day or night and, really, it was about our gardens. The aesthetics were mentally pleasing, but it was about just how much economic gain did we lose in South Australia by just walking away? How was it that in South Australia we had an 18 per cent allocation in one year, yet when we look to Victoria and New South Wales, they received a 40 per cent or 60 per cent allocation. How did that work? That's right—that was the lack of ability of the government to go over there and negotiate a sharing arrangement. It was not about the government here going, 'Those bad, bad New South Welshmen and Victorians won't give us the water that we need.' It was about going over there and negotiating.

For that reason I spent many days, weeks and months in Canberra trying to put ideas to the federal government so that we could have better water-sharing arrangements and I was not helped by the South Australian government, let me tell you. One of the reckonings for me to actually put my hand up and stand for the state parliament was the day that the then premier said to me that he would not support my concept to help a HECS-type finance scheme for irrigators in South Australia because there were no votes in it for him. That was outrageous! No votes. What are we saying about our garden now, 'No votes, so I'm not going to support you.' I went home and thought long and hard about it for approximately two weeks, and I decided that I had had enough. Rather than talk and whinge about it, I was going to do something. That is why I stood for state parliament and came into this place to make a contribution.

The previous minister, the state member of parliament who I succeeded in the seat of Chaffey, was the water minister, but she was hijacked. She had the poisoned chalice of a Labor government calling the shots. She was trying to look after her people, but she had made her bed and decided that she was going to lie in that bed, and she had to die by drinking from that chalice. That was, she supported a Labor government with their lack of support, their lack of vision, their lack of being able to negotiate, and I think that was a telling tale.

That placed South Australia behind the eight ball—not only behind the eight ball but it made us a laughing stock right across the basin. Every time this current government goes to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or to COAG or to negotiate with other states, ministers or premiers they say, 'You want more water for the bottom end of the river—well, what have you done down there? What have you actually physically done? Environmental works and measures?' The reply, 'Oh well, we've planted some trees to try to reduce acid sulphate soil.' 'So, what have you done to create efficiencies within that fragile environment down there?' 'We did a scoping study; primarily financed by the federal government with a small amount of backing from the state government.' But the state government's call was to do nothing. A $750,000 scoping study to do nothing; no environmental outcome.

We had 20,000 gigalitres come down from 2010 to 2012—I am pretty sure those numbers are around the mark. We still had high salinity in Lake Albert. We still had high salinity in the Coorong. What was done to try to reduce that salinity and try to make those environmental assets more sustainable? Nothing. It was to put the scoping study in the bottom drawer. The current water minister has a lot to answer for because he knows that he is very good at playing political games and he is very good at achieving nothing. He is very good at achieving no outcome.

Let's face it: the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was to achieve an outcome. The initial basin plan 2007, 150 gigalitres to be achieved by 2019 so that by 2019 we will have brought enough water back in and presented it to the commonwealth environmental water holder. The majority of that water has been put into the system through efficiency gains and buyback from irrigators to the detriment of an economic platform. To date we have seen the South Australian government contribute little to nothing.

We have seen the South Australian government contribute no environmental works and measures in South Australia, particularly below Lock 1. We see some environmental works and measures at and above Lock 5. We have to remember that every lock in our river system has a bypass; it has a wetland around it. We look at Lock 6 and the Chowilla wetland, the historic forest. We have put a regulator in the Chowilla Creek. We look at all the feeder creeks that feed the Chowilla Creek and they have had regulators put on them too. Is there any environmental work coming away from there? Is there any environmental outcome? Yes, we are breeding carp and we are breeding introduced weed species.

Where is a management plan in South Australia to deal with those issues? We have built another regulator at Lock 5 at Pike Creek. They have gold plated a lot of infrastructure that existed there. They have found efficiencies, yes; I think it's a great initiative. But, again, where are the efficiencies? They have taken out stone walls and put in concrete walls. They have put in more regulators that were once regulated by boards and rock walls. We go down to Lock 4 and look at Katarapko—same thing: we are looking at putting in regulators there.

We go to Lock 3, Banrock Station, private enterprise. Hello! Banrock Station engineered regulators, a watering regime around Lock 3. Private enterprise went in and did it. We go to Lock 2 at Taylorville. They are having some success down there. We go to Lock 1 and then below Lock 1 everything just falls in a heap.

When South Australia has its next dry, I want everyone to take note that the South Australian government will go cap in hand and say, 'Those terrible Eastern States are taking all of our water.' Those Eastern States will say, 'What have you done in the good times to prepare for the dry times?' They will not have an answer because of a lack of will to start upgrading the barrages. We have huge saltwater seepage back into our bottom end of the river system; we have the connector between Lake Albert and the Coorong to provide a flow out of Lake Albert into the Coorong to create flow so that fresher water, low-salinity water will go into Lake Albert, into the Coorong, and create a much more sustainable environment—no, not interested.

We look at The Narrows at Narrung and just exactly what was achieved down there—nothing. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.