WATER INDUSTRY BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

(Continued from 3 April 2012.)

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

That the council does not insist on its amendment No.12 and agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

The government filed this amendment to clause 96A. The government believes that any assessment of metering and any decision on how to proceed must take place within an explicit cost benefit framework. Under the government's proposal, there would still be a report by ESCOSA published by 30 June 2013, but there will be more explicit emphasis on a cost benefit analysis. The report would assess the costs and benefits of installing meters in the cases outlined in the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's original subclauses (1)(a) to (d), but it would also assess any other case that ESCOSA determines to include in the analysis.

In line with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's original subclauses, the report will also have specific regard to the costs and benefits of installing meters in new properties or developments, as well as the costs and benefits of retrofitting existing properties. It is the government's view that the proposed clause 96A is consistent with the spirit of what was proposed by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire but it does not in any way seek to pre-empt or suggest an outcome.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Take your time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you, minister, I will take my time.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Some of us are actually energetic and want to get on with it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I won't even be drawn into that interjection about being energetic and wanting to get on with it, given the number of times you are not here, Hon. Mr Brokenshire. The opposition is happy to support the government's position. I will speak briefly on the issues we are dealing with. I think we all saw the merit in what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was proposing in his original amendment, but we are uncertain of the cost. From what has been agreed in the House of Assembly, I think it is a sensible compromise position on Housing Trust properties. I suspect that at some point in the future, if new properties can be individually metered, maybe there is an opportunity, ultimately, for that to happen.

The other point I am delighted about in relation to this package that has come back from the House of Assembly, is an election commitment that was made when Rob Kerin was leader of the Liberal Party at the 2006 election and then again at the 2010 election, that we would relieve people who receive SA Water but not water from the Murray from paying the River Murray levy. That was something the Liberal Party firmly believed was inequitable: people in Mount Gambier, Kangaroo Island, the Far North of the state, and the like, paying a levy to preserve a resource they did not have any impact upon.

We thought that was inequitable and we are very pleased that finally we have been able to achieve a very small part of our election commitment of the past two elections, even though we are in opposition. We are delighted the government has seen the folly of its ways and has come to a compromise position where those people will not be charged the River Murray levy. I would expect that, if our party machine is working properly, those people will have received letters by now informing them of the great work the Liberal Party has done to relieve them of that burden.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In speaking to the consideration of the amendments from our house to the other house, there are three things that Family First would say. Firstly, before getting on to the clause 96A, we were pleased to see that the government and all members in the lower house did adopt the SACOSS recommendations that were moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell and supported by, I think, everybody here in the upper house without exception. I think that is a good social outcome for those people and I put that on the public record.

With respect to the River Murray water levy, our amendment pushing the abolition of that did not get up, but it did stimulate deliberation with respect to what the honourable Leader of the Opposition has just said. So there is a win for some, but we will not apologise for continuing to put pressure on the government and the opposition as they come towards an election about where they are going to make a difference with what is hurting the South Australian community immensely and that is, levies, taxes, charges, imposts, cost recoveries and being the highest taxed, the highest levied and the highest charged state in Australia.

Something has to give. I look forward to policy initiative and how the opposition is going to actually deliver better outcomes towards the next election. I also look forward to how the government is going to start to address the massive deficit that is ballooning out without further hitting hip pockets or front-line services. I do not make any apology for continuing to move to get rid of some of these levies and imposts.

Thirdly and finally, coming to the amendment, we have made some ground with this. I would have liked to have seen the opposition hang with all those who were an absolute majority in this council to say that the time has come when something does have to be done about water meters. Having said that, I thank all members for their contributions and I thank the opposition for at least pushing this amendment on the government. I congratulate the government also for looking at this amendment, because this does at least achieve that, by the middle of next year, for once we will know what the costs, implications and ramifications are with respect to water meters and the total unfairness with all of that with respect to the public housing sector at the moment.

The challenge will then be to chart a way forward to address it. I finish with this point. Back in 2008, lots of colleagues in this house and many people in the South Australian community, through petitions that were tabled in this house last year, expressed concern about the lack of will to address the inequities with water meters in public housing. In 2008 the then minister responsible (now the Premier) said on the public record that he would fix this problem; and here we are today, four years later, with the problem unfixed. We do have a situation where we have moved slightly forward and for that I commend the amendment that we will be supporting. Rest assured, opposition, and government in particular, hopefully a number of us on the crossbenches will continue our fight to get something sorted out that is equitable for water meters in public housing properties.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: When this amendment first came up, the Greens supported it, and we did so with the caveat, or the rider if you like, that we could see that it would potentially create some problems, but we wanted to keep the door open for discussions with government to make sure that, wherever possible, people who are on shared water meters could transition to having their own meters.

When I say we supported the amendment with caveats, basically the process of this place is that we can buy time—and it has only been a matter of days, so it has not been greatly inconvenient to anyone—to find out exactly what is going on. I appreciate the two meetings that minister Hunter has provided to me, where he has explained what the cost implications would be of having an absolute position where all these old single-meter properties would need to be converted to each dwelling having its own separate meter; it would be a considerable cost.

Having said that, I think the opposition could perhaps have held out a little bit longer in order for us to find out exactly whether all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. I can appreciate that there are some properties where it may simply be beyond the question of putting meters in (where you would have to demolish half a block of flats in order to install them); we do not want to force the government to do silly things like that. However, I am not yet convinced that there are not some properties that could still be fixed up.

In coming to the conclusion that we have on these amendments, I appreciated the discussions that I have had with representatives of Shelter SA, SACOSS and the Public Housing Tenants Association. I also had a long conversation with one of the private water meter providers, someone who makes a living from retrofitting these multiple dwelling properties with private in-line meters.

Based on what we have before us now, it seems clear that the Legislative Council is not going to insist on an amendment that requires the government to retrofit all these properties, but we will have some more information before us in a year or so, and I am hopeful that that information will identify whether there is some more low-hanging fruit. I think people do rail against the injustice of being sent a bill for a commodity where no-one can show exactly how much of that commodity they have used. Certainly none of us would accept a shared telephone bill. Just imagine it: have you made as many calls as your next-door neighbour? Splitting the bill equally just would not work for most people.

I appreciate that the government has, as a way of trying to redress the inherent unfairness of the situation, provided a 30 per cent discount to public housing tenants but, on my calculations, there are still some scenarios where there are some people who are paying more than they need to. Clearly, the majority of people getting a discount—so, by definition, the majority—would be saving, but there are still some people who are paying more than they have to.

It is a combination of factors, not the least of which is that the first tier in an inclining block tariff system, that first tier of cheap water, is actually spread over all of the people who occupy the property. All 20 units, if you like, in a block of flats share that first tier; if they were separately metered they would each get their own tier. The 30 per cent compensates for that in a lot of cases but not in all cases.

The Greens accept that the committee is not going to insist on this amendment. I look forward to seeing the report that comes back. I urge the government to see if there is more low-hanging fruit and if there is an opportunity to allow people to take more responsibility for their own use of water—and that includes responsibility to conserve and save water but also the responsibility to pay for exactly what you have used—and I look forward to that debate again in a year or so.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I also am quite disappointed that we have not pursued this particular matter a little harder. I commend the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for the amendment that he put forward because I have also been contacted by many people from out north who are on shared water meters. I know now that there is technology, as the Hon. Mark Parnell mentioned, that allows for in-line metering which means that we do not have to rip up footpaths and driveways and all that sort of stuff in order to install meters for the majority, as a matter of fact, of the people who are on shared meters. I, too, have spoken to a person who is involved in that business and it would not be as much of a cost impost to have that done as the government would like people to believe.

I hope that in the cost-benefit analysis that we are talking about that if that technology or those methods are not included in that report, that they now will be and we can actually compare the difference between in-line metering and ripping up footpaths and driveways and whatever else to install the pipes and whatever for those meters. I think we would find that, overall, it would work out to be quite an efficient way to do it and quite cost-effective. I hope the government does not do what it normally does and take a one-eyed view of this, that it will just use the old technology of installing individual meters and then cry that it will cost millions and millions of dollars and is not worth doing, is not cost-effective enough, and will be a cost impost on the people who are having those meters installed. I do believe there is a cheaper way and I would like to see that reflected in the report if possible.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Very briefly, I would like to put on the record that I originally supported this amendment. I think we all understand why it is important to the people who are calling for this; I think people do want to feel they are in control of their water bills and that they are paying for what they use. However, I do understand that at the moment the working shows that the cost of installing individual meters would override the benefit of people paying for their individual use.

Like the Hon. Mr Parnell, I do think there are options or compromises that we have not yet considered. I thank minister Hunter for the meetings he has had with the Hon. Mr Parnell and myself, and I look forward to having more of them to ensure that we are doing as much as we can to ensure as fair a compromise as possible is reached.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I would like to take this opportunity to thank the opposition and the crossbenchers for their willingness to engage with the government in a rational discussion about these issues. I would also like to thank the Liberal opposition for seeing the error of their ways in supporting the original amendment, and I am pleased to note that they will be putting out letters to their constituents advising of the great victory that the Liberals have achieved in this regard. I am only too pleased to say that I will not now be putting out letters advising those people in South Australia who would be impacted about who brought them this huge cost impost that we will not now be imposing on them.

Motion carried.