WATER INDUSTRY BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 28 February 2012.)

Clause 18.

The CHAIR: The last time the committee met, the Hon. Mr Ridgway had moved an amendment to clause 18, and the minister was to seek advice.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have sought some further advice, and I indicate to the committee that the government is prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 19 to 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 20, after line 26—Insert:

(3a) The Treasurer must, within 14 days after the receipt of a report under subsection (3), cause a copy of the report to be published on the Department of Treasury and Finance's website.

This amendment inserts a new subclause (3a), which obliges the Treasurer to table a report concerning the level of annual licence fees. In the House of Assembly the government argued that the time for tabling of three sitting days provided in the amendment presented by the opposition in the other place was too limited. This new proposed amendment now pushes that out to 14 days. We think the purpose of the amendment is to increase accountability. Because the government rightly claimed that three sitting days was too short a period of time, we are now saying 14 sitting days. We would hope that the government and the crossbenchers see the sense and wisdom of this amendment and support it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The honourable member is quite correct in saying the original amendment to this clause in the House of Assembly required a report to be tabled in parliament in three sitting days. As he also noted, that probably is a little too onerous. It would not allow time, for example, for cabinet and other related processes to take into account such a time frame. It still remains the government's position that reports should be tabled in parliament within 12 sitting days. This is in line with similar requirements across other legislation. It would then give us time, for example, to publish such a report on the Department of Treasury and Finance's website; so we are opposing the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: This is a fairly minor amendment and it does go to the question of transparency. Really, the difference between the government and opposition positions is very, very small. The opposition is saying 14 days. They have moved some distance, as I understand it, from their previous three sitting days. The government has not sought to amend the Liberal amendment by increasing the time period. If they were that keen that it was that important they would have done it.

I think the Greens will support the amendment; it adds to transparency. If between the houses the government wants to come back with an alternative, which is their longer period of time, because they have not said they are opposing transparency (they are just concerned about the time period), let them, between the houses, come back with a different number if they want, but the Greens will be supporting it now.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I will support it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We can count on this side. We will not be seeking to divide but we continue to oppose.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I undertook last night to come back to the chamber with some responses to questions I was asked. It might be appropriate for me to put that on the record now. I undertook to get back to the chamber on the Hon. Mr Ridgway's question of the financial burdens placed on the Salisbury council under this proposed new licensing regime.

As indicated, the bulk of the licence fee revenue will be paid by SA Water, and the impact on other water industry entities will be modest. I was then asked to quantify 'modest'. With respect to application fees and based on initial advice from ESCOSA, the government expects the reasonable costs of determining an application to be similar to that currently set for energy retail licence applications. In this respect, the government expects that the $1,000 paid for an application to ESCOSA for an energy retail licence, as set by the Minister for Energy, would be an appropriate amount for the application fee under clause 19 of the bill.

With respect to the annual licence fee, the government expects that this would include an additional fixed component of $1,000 plus a variable component. The variable will be based on the total number of water and sewerage connections and regulatory effort. SA Water has approximately 93 per cent of the total water and sewerage connections in South Australia and will be contributing a similar share of the regulatory costs. Given large monopoly suppliers like SA Water would be subject to a formal price regulation, they will also be responsible for the major portion of ESCOSA's regulatory effort. The upshot is that the variable component contributed by entities with a small number of connections—say, less than 500—could be expected to be around the $1,000 or $2,000 mark. This is a ballpark figure.

As members will be aware, in the House of Assembly the government accepted an opposition amendment that required the government to take into account advice contained in a written report furnished to the Treasurer by ESCOSA for the purpose of setting licence fees. It is, therefore, impossible to be more precise about the licence fee figures at this time as this will be pre-empting the advice of ESCOSA.

In concluding the answer, I also point out that if licence fees were to be used for any other purpose other than regulation of the water industry, then this would be considered an excise which states are prohibited from collecting under section 90 of Australia's constitution.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I withdraw my amendment [Ridgway-1] 9 because it is consequential.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 22, after line 20—Insert:

(1a) The Minister must, in acting under subsection (1)(o), take into account the principle set out in section 35(8a).

I apologise to members that my replacement set [Parnell-2] which entirely replaces [Parnell-1] has only just arrived recently, but I can assure members that it covers exactly the same territory as the previous set of amendments. My amendment No. 1 (and it is cross-referenced to my amendment No. 3, which we will get to later) basically goes to this question of concession schemes and the performance of community service obligations. Under clause 25 (which is a licensing clause) basically licence holders have to comply with the requirements of any concession scheme or community service obligation scheme that is devised by the minister. These, of course, will be publicly-funded schemes; they are not schemes funded by the water entities themselves.

What my amendment seeks to do is to say that, when the minister is putting his or her mind to what should be in these customer concession and community service obligation provisions, the minister should have regard to some principles which are set out in a new subclause (8a) of clause 35, which we will get to later, so I just need to briefly explain what that is.

For the benefit of the committee, I should say that I have moved a great deal since my first lot of amendments were drafted. The first lot of amendments, I had a fairly concrete concept called 'the essential residential consumption amount'. This is an amount of water that is deemed to be essential for all people to live a quality life and be able to wash, drink, eat and clean their clothes and whatever. The government balked at the idea of having a fixed concrete amount that could be quantified, so what I have attempted to do in this amendment is go to the vibe, rather than go to the quantifiable amount.

The vibe is now for the minister to take into account the fact that members of the community should be entitled to the provision of a basic amount of water for essential human needs and that the price of water provided to residential premises should take into account the need to ensure that this amount of water is generally affordable. It is very much the vibe; it is not a concrete amount. It does not say how much that water should cost, but it recognises what I think governments have always recognised with the inclining block tariff and that is that the first bit of water—it is not discretionary; you have to have this bit of water to keep healthy and clean and whatever—really does need to be dealt with separately from more discretionary components, and that is why we have always priced the first bit of water cheaper.

I know it might sound convoluted because it is coming in a licensing section, but what this amendment says is that the licence holders have to obey the conditions of their licence. One of the conditions of the licence will be the minister's concessional arrangements and the minister's community service obligations, and that when the minister is putting his or her mind to those things, they should take into account the feature I have just referred to: water is essential for life; at least some part of it (unquantified) should be provided at an affordable amount. That is the purpose of this inclusion here. But, as I have said, it is cross-referenced to part of my amendment No. 3 to clause 35, which sets out the vibe of the intent of this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment relates to the concession schemes and to the Hon. Mr Parnell's proposals in his amendment No. 3 to clause 35 for the concession scheme to take into account water for essential human needs. The government does not support the proposed amendment to clause 35 for reasons which I will outline, and therefore it does not support this amendment at all.

In developing a concession scheme, it is not practical for the government to take into account the provision of a basic amount of water for essential human needs. This simply begs the question of how to define an essential amount. In this respect, I note the recent findings of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into Australia's urban water sector, which found that there is no need for an essential residential volume of the water. The commission states:

In addition to being unnecessary, it would also be difficult to do given that the amount of essential water use required at the household level...is determined in part by the number of persons who reside in a household.

The government agrees with this view and will not be supporting the amendment because, in the Hon. Mr Parnell's parlance, the vibe is just too vague. I might leave the discussion of Mr Parnell's amendment. I have some other notes to put onto the record, which I will do after we break from this clause.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My understanding is that this is a re-jigging of the Hon. Mr Mark Parnell's original set of amendments. I think I am right in saying that. I indicate that, from what I can understand, it obliges the minister to establish a low income concession scheme of sorts. The bill provides, under clauses 25(4) and (5), for the minister to include licence condition provisions to assist customers who are experiencing some kind of hardship and for the minister to gain relevant information from a licensee to enable the administration of a concession scheme or for the performance of community service obligations. The opposition has already indicated that it has a desire for a review of a range of these concessions provided by the state. It is our view that this will make that review at some future point somewhat difficult and may even compromise it, so I indicate that we will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 22, after line 20—Insert:

(1a) The Commission must, in acting under subsection (1), have regard to the scale and nature of the operations of the water industry entity (with the scale and nature being determined by the Commission after consultation with the entity or a person or body nominated by the entity).

The government acknowledges the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association and those shared by some members of this chamber. I foreshadowed last night that we were drafting this amendment—and I bring it forward to the chamber now—about how independent economic regulation will be applied to smaller entities. These concerns apply in particular to small community wastewater management schemes run by local government. As previously indicated, the government regards these as essential services but has also sought to assure the chamber that these services will be subject to a light-handed regulation. I have already outlined what 'light-handed' means in practice.

To give members of this chamber and other stakeholders additional assurance on this issue, the proposed amendment requires ESCOSA, under this clause, to have regard to the size and nature of the entity in question. Moreover, this must be done in consultation with the entity itself, or its nominated representative, which could be an organisation; for example, the LGA.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that while the opposition is not totally happy with this amendment, it goes some way towards addressing our concerns. I am looking at some advice from the Local Government Association. It states that it is aware the government will move an amendment with licensing requirements that must have regard to the scale and nature of schemes being operated by the water entity, with the scale and nature being determined by the commission after consultation with the water entity, or persons nominated. I think the LGA and the opposition are at one on this. The LGA also states that it does not totally address the concerns of councils but does move some way forward from where this bill is currently. So, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens are supporting this amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 22, lines 23 and 24—Delete 'considered appropriate by the Commission' and substitute:

authorised by the regulations

This is a technical amendment which will ensure that any new licence conditions considered appropriate will be established by regulation, rather than as considered appropriate by the commission. It gives parliament some extra oversight, if you like, and being a regulation it gives parliament the right to disallow, thus preserving some more of the parliament's sovereignty.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway removes the ability of the independent economic regulator to make licences subject to further conditions as deemed appropriate by the commission. Given that the commission must operate within requirements set out in legislation, it is difficult to see what would be achieved by denying them the flexibility envisaged in the clause.

This clause exists in similar industry legislation, namely the gas and electricity acts. This clause has been used in the past by ESCOSA under these acts to impose a licence condition prohibiting energy entities from introducing a prepayment metering system. These systems (which were not common at the time of passing the gas and electricity acts) received considerable condemnation from social interest groups such as SACOSS. The government will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I can see that this amendment is attractive to the extent that often in this place we try to have more elements of law put into disallowable instruments rather than leaving it to the discretion of statutory bodies, but I am comforted that this amendment is not really necessary by two factors. The first is that ESCOSA, under its own legislation, has constraints. It is not an unfettered discretion simply to add whatever conditions they like to a licence.

Secondly, the reason the minister gave is that there may be very relevant unforeseen circumstances that do require additional licence conditions, and I think it is appropriate for the commission to determine what they are. The example the minister has given is an example where this power was used for consumer protection and that shows that this clause, left as it is, will not necessarily cause the harm that perhaps the opposition thinks it might.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 22, line 25—Delete 'if the Minister so requires'

This refers to something the Hon. David Ridgway referred to before. He will tell me if I misquote him, but he referred to subsection (4) and he said that the minister will have to prepare some guidelines, if you like, or rules around hardship provisions. It is not quite like that on my reading of subsection (4). What it says is:

A code or set of rules under subsection (1)(a)—

and (1)(a) basically talks about codes and rules under the Essential Services Commission Act—

must, if the Minister so requires, include provisions to assist customers who may be suffering specified types of hardship...

The important words there are 'if the Minister so requires'. What those words mean is that the minister, if he or she does not want to, does not have to prepare any code of conduct or give any guidance to ESCOSA in preparing a code of conduct in relation to hardship provisions.

My understanding is that it would be the minister's full intention to prepare such guidelines and for ESCOSA to prepare such a policy, so deleting the words 'if the Minister so requires' makes it crystal clear that the minister will go down the path of facilitating a hardship program. It seems to me that we are simply saying in legislation what I understand the government is already committed to doing.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Hon. Mr Parnell, the fabulous 'leader of the opposition', and long may you reign over there. The government supports this amendment. It complements the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments in relation to hardship. It is the government's view that hardship policy should be developed based on evidence as to what works in the best interests of consumers.

In its energy retail code, ESCOSA sets out how retailers must deal with customers who are experiencing payment difficulties. While similar requirements might be expected to apply in the water industry, under the amendments proposed by the Hon. Mr Parnell it is the minister who will have responsibility for developing a hardship policy, which must then be included in the codes developed by ESCOSA.

The Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion will be delegated the minister's responsibility with respect to hardship policy and the government would work with community organisations and other key stakeholders on the contents of that direction. As I said, the government will, therefore, support the amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is the opposition's understanding that this amendment of the Hon. Mark Parnell seeks to direct ESCOSA by establishing a principle that water pricing should have regard to the provision of a basic amount of water for essential human needs.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Wrong one, David. It is the new set, so your notes will be out.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We only got this set tonight and the Hon. Mark Parnell indicated that they were pretty much a mirror image of what we had—except I should have been suspicious because there were five amendments and now there are six. Given that we only got them tonight, I have two choices. The government is supporting it, which is what the minister indicated he would be doing, and this, of course, has not been to the Liberal Party party room, so I indicate I have two choices—either to report progress (which we will be doing shortly for the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendments) or vote against it.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Oppose it if you need to. I think it will be all right.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: At this point in time, I indicate the opposition will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 22, after line 29—Insert:

(4a) However, assistance provided to customers on account of a requirement imposed under subsection (4) must be limited to arrangements for the payment of any charge or other monetary liability by instalments.

This amendment is made in the context that the bill envisages that entities other than SA Water, a public company, will be subject to the law, and thus restricts the minister's power so that private businesses will not be obliged at the minister's discretion to provide payment relief other than by instalments.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government will not be supporting this amendment. It limits assistance to vulnerable customers and undermines the safeguards in the bill to protect them. Furthermore, this amendment is inconsistent with current practices in the state in energy, and in other jurisdictions in both water and energy, I am advised. Customers experiencing hardship are people who are having trouble paying, not just people who will not pay.

People can experience hardship for a range of reasons and require a range of solutions. In contrast to the opposition amendments, hardship measures for vulnerable customers of essential services often include more than just payment arrangements for charges and instalments. For example, hardship-related measures used in the South Australian energy industry often include extra training for service provider staff to identify and assist hardship customers, providing information about alternative payment options, government assistance and concessions, protection arrangements for further debt collection, access to retrofitting and energy audits and financial counselling. We are trying to replicate these types of arrangements in the water industry.

Hardship is a good example of where we should be aligning the arrangements in water and electricity. For example, it is reasonable to assume that a customer who is having difficulty paying an electricity bill will also find it difficult to pay a water bill. It is also reasonable to assume they will be contacting the same government agencies for assistance. It, therefore, makes a lot of sense to align the hardship arrangements in these industries. Surely, this would lead to efficiencies and minimise customer confusion.

I also note that the proposed amendment provides South Australian customers with less protection than is available, for example, in Victoria. I would ask: are our vulnerable consumers deserving of less protection than their Victorian counterparts? If you think so, you will vote for this amendment of the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

Similarly, the limits on hardship arrangements proposed in the amendment are inconsistent with national practice in the National Energy Customer Framework. I provide these examples to illustrate that customer hardship is a complex matter and not one that can be addressed through the narrow limits proposed in this amendment. The government takes the provision on hardship policy very seriously. That is why we have also retained the ability to direct ESCOSA on these matters under clause 39(4)(c) of the bill. I note the opposition has not proposed an amendment to that clause.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. The rationale of the Liberals seems to be that water operators, water companies, if you like, other than SA Water, should not be expected to respond to hardship in any way other than by offering an instalment plan. I think that, for the reasons the minister has given, all players in the water industry need to behave consistently and that the non SA Water operators need to go further than just this.

The other thing that is probably worth saying (and it might be speculative on my part) is that there is certainly a fear that the non SA Water operators are likely to be the types of people who have less experience of dealing with hardship cases and are probably more likely to handle them worse than SA Water would. SA Water has had to deal with this for a long time. I am not saying that they are perfect, but certainly I think there is a chance that new operators could be far worse, and I think that they should be obliged to do more than simply offer instalment plans to hardship clients.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I also will not be supporting this amendment, but I would like to ask the minister a question, and I am hoping that the answer will give me some hope. When he said that people who are suffering hardship will most likely contact the same government agencies about those hardship issues, is he telling me now that these departments and government agencies are actually going to start talking to each other? Is that what he meant by saying that there will be a better response to this, that we do have a communication system in place now that is coordinated?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My comments were directed to those agencies that provide financial counsellors. When people are in hardship, they will contact those agencies.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister clarify this. I thought the majority of financial counselling services the government had control over had child protection relations, and in fact this would be putting people at risk of potentially being subjected to child protection concerns if they were in difficulties.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: That is not my understanding. The majority of financial counsellors who are in the government sector provide services to those clients of the department of families. There are, of course, financial counsellors in the non-government sector providing those services to those who are not clients of the department of families.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My understanding is that, with the cutbacks, the prioritisation is now going to those cases which have child protection concerns. That would lead one to imagine that if they are in that situation that is actually what you are opening yourself up to.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not accept the premise. What our financial counsellors who work in the department of families are doing is providing services to those customers. We have provided other financial means and FTEs to the non-government sector to pick up the extra slack in financial counselling service demand.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question for the minister, particularly because of the minister's direct portfolio responsibilities, based on the answer that the minister gave to the opposition on why the minister, on behalf of the government, would not be accepting or supporting the opposition's amendment. Can we have some reassurance that, in relation to hardship provisions with Housing SA tenants and water supply and the like, the government will look after Housing SA tenants and other vulnerable people?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As we usually do.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There is plenty of evidence I want to put on the public record that the government does not actually show much heart for public housing tenants.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I reject that assertion completely. The honourable member has obviously forgotten that Housing SA pays 30 per cent of the water bill on group tenancies.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Because they do not have water meters.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: And they pay less.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record some answers to questions that were posed to me last night, I think. I undertook to get back to the chamber with some answers on whether towns where non-potable water is supplied are subject to the same prices as supplies of potable water. I advise that all SA Water non-potable water supplies are charged at statewide prices, except the following.

Firstly, rates from the northern railway towns of Cockburn, Manna Hill, Olary, Oodla Wirra, Terowie and Yunta are applied under the Water Conservation Act 1936 as follows: the supply charge equivalent to the charge as required by the Waterworks Act 1932; all water used up to and including 30 kilolitres per quarter is charged at the normal statewide price; all water used over 30 kilolitres per quarter is charged at four times the normal second tier statewide price.

Secondly, rates for Marla are applied as follows: supply charge equal to double the statewide charge, as required by the Waterworks Act; all water used is then charged at double the normal statewide price. Thirdly, rates for Marree and Oodnadatta are applied as follows: the statewide supply charge as required by the Waterworks Act—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: If the honourable member does not want to listen he can go and milk his cows. A free water allowance of 66 kilolitres per quarter applies related to highly saline supply; water used in excess of the allowance to be charged at the normal statewide price.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 23, line 3—After 'services' insert:

operated by entities licensed under this Part

For members in the chamber, it reads:

The minister must publish a report about third party access to water infrastructure and sewerage infrastructure services

Then we will add 'operated by entities licensed under this Part'. This amendment is consequential to the opposition's amendment No. 2, which contemplates that there will be reticulated services outside the regulated scheme, such as Salisbury council.

Now the minister moved an amendment—and I look for a bit of clarification from parliamentary counsel—which went some way towards addressing the concerns in our amendment No. 2, which was the community wastewater management schemes. I probably should have rushed across to parliamentary counsel and got some advice earlier; it is consequential on our amendment No. 2, but I am wondering whether it is still relevant. Is it still relevant? I think it is.

Basically, this amendment contemplates that there will be reticulated services outside the regulated schemes, and it causes the minister to publish a report about third party access to water infrastructure and sewerage infrastructure services operated by entities licensed under this part.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I advise, and I think I am correct, that the amendment No. 2 that the Hon. Mr Ridgway is speaking to was defeated last night. Is that the one?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: But then you were coming back with another amendment which satisfied—

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Yes; thank you for that. The government will oppose this amendment as we believe it would limit the scope of a report on third party access to licensed vertically integrated retailers only, I am advised. It is inappropriate to limit the scope of the report to parliament on this important policy development in this way. It is entirely inappropriate in the development of the report that stand-alone water and sewerage networks be considered in scope.

Furthermore, to only consider licensed retailers in the development of the third-party access report would make it difficult to consider developments in other industries and a number of intergovernmental arrangements that have been developed under commonwealth legislation, such as the commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the commonwealth Water Act 2007. We urge the chamber to summarily reject this amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As I understand this amendment, the reason that the opposition has continued to push with it is that the government has potentially left the door open for some water entities to not be licensed, in particular, the very small ones. So, the door is open. We do not know whether anyone will fall into that category, but the door is open.

The question for us is whether, when it comes to the minister publishing a report, that report should be a comprehensive report in relation to all water operators or only licensed water operators. It seems to me there is no extra imposition on the unlicensed operators if the minister is to write a report that refers to them.

So, given that the amendment we are talking about is about the minister publishing a report about third-party access to water infrastructure, the minister's report should be comprehensive; it should include access by those people who are licensed, and those who are unlicensed, if there are any. It is actually a broader report if we reject the Liberal amendment, so the Greens will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Yes, the Hon. Mr Parnell is correct, in my assessment. For example, any bulk water supplier who has no retail component to their business would not be covered under the Liberals' amendment. The Liberals' amendment is actually going to restrict what can be covered in the report, and we do not think that is a necessary amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr Acting Chairman, I have just had a discussion with parliamentary counsel; they have been around longer than all of us put together, and they seem to think that this amendment certainly would still apply, notwithstanding that it was consequential from amendment No. 2.

I ask the chamber to support it, and perhaps we could have some discussion. We are going to report progress on it shortly, and we will get to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments. We could even have some discussion between the houses. The opposition is certainly not going to die in a ditch over it, but I think it would be unfortunate to oppose it tonight, rather than perhaps give it a chance to be supported, and then we can take a further close look at it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 23, after line 15—Insert:

(4) The Minister must use his or her best endeavours to introduce into Parliament within 9 months after the commencement of this section a Bill for an Act to provide for a third party access regime to water infrastructure and sewerage infrastructure services operated by entities licensed under this Part (after taking into account the contents of the report prepared under subsection (1) and any other relevant factor).

This is an important amendment, in the sense that it strikes at something the opposition has been arguing passionately about for some time, which is third-party access. The opposition has long argued that the government is not serious about third-party access and is really only paying lip service to the concept. The consultation on the bill received strong support from a wide range of stakeholders about third-party access.

The experience from New South Wales, where a regime has been in place for some years, is that no entity has successfully gained third-party access, as the law simply makes it too difficult. This amendment simply obliges the minister to use his or her best endeavours to achieve what the government claims is its aim.

It is quite a simple amendment, and I would certainly urge members to support it. Third-party access is something that the opposition has been arguing for some time, and we think it makes sense, certainly in some of our more remote communities, where there may be an opportunity for a third party to provide services and keep the costs for local consumers down.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government believes that the speaker for the opposition is putting the cart before the horse in this regard. The amendment pre-empts the outcomes of the review of third-party access and places this provision in the act before this chamber—the parliament—has had a chance to develop a view on that subject.

It also pre-empts the outcomes and limits the time in which we consider this issue without considering the complexities that might arise from the third-party access review. It simply places an arbitrary time line on this which may not reflect the complexity of the task required and may, in fact, prove counterproductive. The government cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First will be supporting this amendment. I am happy to have time lines put into legislation. But even when time lines are in legislation—you only have to look at water allocation plans, for example in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges and the Western Mount Lofty Ranges, which the government are in breach of the law on, because they are three years overdue in bringing those water allocation plans in because of their incompetence.

If we do not put some time lines on here, we will drift along and, if this government happens to get back for a tired old fourth term, they could get so tired that we could have a situation where we are talking about this at the 2018 election. So, what is wrong with putting a bit of pressure on? The Leader of the Opposition can correct me if I am wrong, but we have looked at the bill and our analysis of this amendment is that the opposition has argued that the government is not serious about third-party access and is really only paying lip service to the concept.

The consultation on the bill received strong support for third-party access but the experience from New South Wales, where a regime has been in place for some years, is that no entity has successfully gained third-party access, as the law simply makes it too difficult. In summary, all this amendment does, as we read it, is simply oblige the minister to use his or her best endeavours to achieve what the government claims is its aim; therefore, we will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The honourable member is a little bit confused in his comments. The government is committing to a time line for the report—there was no equivocation there. What we are not doing is second-guessing the outcome of the report by putting the outcome that we think might be in the review into legislation at this point in time.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I understand the logic of the Liberals' amendment, but where this fails to impress the Greens is that we are not as excited about third-party access as either the Liberals or as the Liberals say the government is. What we are talking about here is public infrastructure, largely, and, whilst the Greens have in the past supported initiatives such as sewer mining and the idea of accessing the pipes, our preference is for first-party access.

We think that this is an important enough task that it should be managed by the state through a state-owned entity. So, we want SA Water to be doing more with the infrastructure that it has rather than starting with a philosophical assumption that private companies must certainly be able to do it better and, therefore, we have to legislate in a hasty fashion for them to have access to the pipes. I am just not convinced that that is necessary, and that is leaving aside the argument that the minister has given—which makes sense—that putting a nine-month time frame on it does actually pre-empt the results of any review.

I would also say that I am not sure, in my six years here, that I have actually seen a clause in legislation which provides for a minister to use best endeavours to introduce a bill into parliament. It is sort of verging on trying to sway a future parliament into something they should do. The decision as to when to introduce legislation rests with members of parliament. If the Hon. David Ridgway thinks that such a bill is a matter of urgency, he will introduce it to this place and we will all consider it on its merits.

A clause like this, obliging the minister to use best endeavours—which, of course, cannot be determined; it is a concept that defies interpretation—to introduce legislation to parliament within nine months after the commencement of this section, I just think has no place in legislation, leaving aside this philosophical position that we are not so desperate to see alternative entities enter the market that we think hasty legislation is the way to do it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I want to clarify this. I will read the amendment again:

The Minister must use his or her best endeavours to introduce into Parliament within 9 months after the commencement of this section a Bill for an Act to provide for a third party access regime to water infrastructure and sewerage infrastructure services operated by entities licensed under this Part (after taking into account the contents of the report prepared under subsection (1) and any other relevant factor).

We are actually putting a time limit on the report. We are saying, 'Get off your bottom and get working. Prepare your report, and after you've taken into account'—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You have had your turn. 'After taking into account the contents of the report, and any other relevant factor, use your best endeavours to do so.' I cannot see what is so difficult about it. We are actually asking the minister to do all of that within nine months. He might think that that is not possible. SA Water is a huge entity and the government is a massive organisation. If they cannot achieve that within nine months then they might as well pack up now.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am inclined to support this, but—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Inclined.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Punchline.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: No, there's no punchline; I am just wondering. I remember participating in an interview with Colin Pitman on FIVEaa probably about 2½ years ago, where he was complaining about the complexities that Salisbury council has faced in trying to get into the water market because of legislation and SA Water having the monopoly, and on and on we go. I ask the Hon. Mr Ridgway whether Salisbury council, or other councils that take on these wetlands projects that have potable and non-potable water supplies, will have an improved chance of gaining third-party access into the market, in your view?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In our view it will, but of course it is, sadly, up to the government. We have laid a time frame out for the inquiry and the report to be tabled and for the government to act. Of course, if they choose not to use their best endeavours or choose not to instigate a third-party access regime, it will not happen, but this certainly goes some way towards allowing that to happen.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: In that case then, I will be supporting this amendment, because I, like the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and other members in here, have heard for six years promises of reviews and God knows what else, and here we are still sitting on native vegetation that I think we debated nearly three years ago. It is still on the books and is no further advanced, because there are no time lines in those kinds of promises that are made. On that basis—and NRM as well—I will be supporting this amendment to try to hold the government to a reasonable time frame for this to be achieved.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: If this amendment were not to get up—and I have already flagged that we will be supporting it—can the minister guarantee the house that the government will not procrastinate to prevent third-party access on the basis that they want to continue to fleece the people of South Australia? We have seen outrageous water increases, particularly in agriculture, and over a six-year period, some of the charges, based on the amount of water that farmers are now taking, have gone up 470 per cent. Is that the reason the government does not want to be held accountable, so that it can continue to rip people off?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I wonder why people bother to ask questions in this place when they are going to give the answer in their speech. However, let me advise the council of this: under clause 26—Third party access regime:

(1) The Minister must publish a report about third party access to water infrastructure and sewerage infrastructure services...

(3) The Minister must publish the report within 1 month after the commencement of this section and cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after the report is published.

There will be no prevarication whatsoever.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am glad the minister has said that, because all we are doing with this amendment is then asking the minister within eight months—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Because, if you read the amendment, it says 'after taking into account the content of the report'. If the content of the report says it is not viable or it is not practical, which I would be very surprised if—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: You have already written it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I see no reason why this should not be supported.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 27 to 34 passed.

Clause 35.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition has not yet taken the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments to its party room, so I therefore move:

That progress be reported.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: If we allow people to come into this place—

The CHAIR: We cannot debate it—we have to put the question.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: —and hold up their amendments just to delay the whole process, it is a travesty. They have had months and months to get these amendments tabled. When did you table them? Yesterday! It is absolutely outrageous.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I will put the question: we cannot debate it. It has been moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway that progress be reported; is that seconded?

An honourable member: Seconded.

Motion carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.