Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time SA Water SA Water The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council SA Water The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:04): I seek leave to ask the Minister for Water questions regarding the policies of SA Water. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister advise the house: 1.	If a burst water main occurs on DPTI or council roads—such as occurred last Friday on Greenhill Road during the Clipsal—does SA Water pay for the full repair work, including all the re-rubbling, compaction and sealing, etc., to DPTI or the council? 2.	Has the minister checked, and if he has not will he check and report back to the council, that there was nearly 12 months when the changeover of management from United Water to the new contractor for SA Water occurred— The Hon. I.K. Hunter Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. Hunter: When was that? The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The changeover was a few years ago now—one year, one full year, when there was a significant reduction in mains replacement and monitoring and the general repair program? The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for his most important question. I have to say that my understanding is that when SA Water is doing repairs, or its contractor Allwater is doing repairs, which require access under roads its policy is to make good those roads and repair them. It is also my understanding that the investment that SA Water makes in terms of its maintenance of the pipe system, on top of the $50 million every year it utilises in terms of making good pipe leaks and bursts, was about $300 million for the last financial year. I understand that amount of money has been relatively consistent. I do not have year-on-year costings for that in front of me, but clearly the honourable member can access that through Auditor-General's reports or through— The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting: The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, the honourable member can choose whatever access route he likes. He could probably just look at the website or go back to some of the annual reports of the agency, but if he wants to put in an FOI because it is easier for him to make other people do the work then off he can go. That is his choice. The important thing is this, and I say it again and again and again: SA Water has lower breakages and bursts of mains than their competitors interstate. The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: We're not interested in interstate— The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The honourable member says that he is not interested in that, he doesn't care about that. He would like to pretend that in an ideal world there are no breakages whatsoever, that no other water system in the world has bursts or breakages in their mains. What he has to do, if he is going to be a responsible member of this chamber, and particularly when he is talking on the wireless to the South Australian community, is actually utilise facts and figures that stand up. Not the magical ones he makes up in his head, or the magical ones that Senator Bob Day seems to send down the phone line to him when they communicate, or however they do that (I have no idea), but actual facts and figures. These national comparative numbers—they are not done by us, they are done at a national level—will show that the number of breaks for Sydney Water alone—not for New South Wales but for Sydney Water alone—is 30 breaks or bursts per 100 kilometres of pipe per year. SA Water's, for South Australia, is 11.5. I think ESCOSA's determination of how many breaks SA Water should target is 21. That is from memory so I cannot actually swear to it, but I think it is right; I read that some time ago. SA Water overachieves, and it overachieves because it expended over $300 million in the last financial year on continual maintenance programs with its pipe network. How can SA Water outcompete Sydney Water, Victorian Water, or Western Australian water utilities in the number of breaks it has in its pipelines if it does not have an excellent pipeline maintenance program? This is what the honourable member does not want to deal with; he does not want to deal with that. He does not want to deal with the fact that, on top of that excellent outcome compared with other water utilities of a similar size of over 1,000 customers, SA Water also has to deal with the reactive clay soils, the Bay of Biscay soils— The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting: The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Ridgway does not believe in it, Mr President, if you remember rightly. Bay of Biscay soils expand and contract, particularly around the Hills Face Zone in the eastern suburbs up around Mitcham and further around to Campbelltown and Paradise. Not only do they outcompete other similar water utilities in having the lowest number of breaks, they also do it on expansive clay soils. That says that that massive investment they expend on their maintenance program is doing something right.