Bills

Water Industry (Compensation for Loss or Damage) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 May 2016.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:27): I did introduce this bill on the last Wednesday of sitting, and I just wish to conclude my remarks on the second reading speech as to why I believe it is very important that this bill be introduced and debated and hopefully voted on in a bipartisan way. It is well documented that there has been a spate of burst water mains that has wreaked havoc all over Adelaide in the past few months, causing major damage to properties while leaving residents without water supply.

I have personally spoken to some of those residents, and they are not interested in what happens in New South Wales, contrary to what the minister thinks. They are not interested in what happens in Victoria, or for that matter in any other state. What they are actually interested in is getting proper compensation and some care from the government and SA Water when, as a victim, they end up with water on their carpets and other damage.

It is not good enough for the minister, on behalf of the government and SA Water, to say, 'Go and see your insurance company.' It should be that the lead agency, in this case SA Water, the perpetrator of the issue even if it is perpetration simply by the fact of what has happened, clay moving or whatever the minister argues—the fact is there are victims in this and they are not customers of SA Water, they are victims. Their properties are damaged and they need proper compensation.

What is concerning is not only the damage to homes, cars, roads, and lengthy delays for road users but also that SA Water has been slow to respond to these issues. Frankly, they have shown a lack of accountability. The start of a burst water main often can be just a little bit of seepage along the road or coming out onto the kerb. People ring up and report that. SA Water asks whether or not there is any threatening situation, and they say, 'Well, not at this point in time, but water is leaking up through the bitumen.' It could be, I am told, several days before there is even an inspection, and that is not satisfactory.

A number of residents affected lack an appropriate level of insurance cover and are under enormous financial pressure while already suffering from emotional distress. Through amendment of the Water Industry Act 2012, this bill seeks to rightfully compensate the victims of burst water mains and leaks. Under this bill, a water industry entity, that is SA Water, must compensate property owners for any loss or damage caused by water infrastructure.

My advice is that if SA Water does damage to other agencies, such as DPTI or any other government agency, SA Water has to fully compensate the other agencies for all the costs in repairing it back to its original state. Why is it that SA Water has to do that for other government agencies but not for private citizens and individual property owners? Moreover, SA Water is to provide immediate financial relief to affected persons for essentials, that is temporary accommodation, food, clothing, etc., depending on the state of damage to the property.

Under this bill, so that the minister does not flippantly say, 'Oh, we can't support this because people will double dip', there is a clause where there will be no double dipping of compensation. The compensation paid from SA Water to an owner is allowed to be taken into account by an insurer in determining the amount payable under the relevant insurance policy. Importantly, insurance companies will not be let off the hook, which addresses the government's main concern. The water industry entity must also cover the cost of excess or any shortfall payable under an insurance claim.

I am told that most of the time these people certainly are out of pocket for much more than the excess, but my argument is that if they do have a claim, why should they have to pay the excess when they are a victim? I will not go through all of them, because all colleagues know that I would be here for hours—actually here for hours—if I was to list every individual water burst in this state since just March. I would be here for hours. I can just quickly say that there were plenty of bursts in March, there were plenty of bursts in April, plenty in May and they are still occurring as recently as, I understand, yesterday.

In relation to SA Water and minister Hunter's defence, SA Water has claimed that incidences of burst water mains are not uncommon for this time of the year, due to weather changes affecting soil and water pressure. Just as an aside, I happened to talk to quite a senior person who is now retired from SA Water, and he told me that there ought to be some investigation into what has happened since they put the desalination plant through and put pumps on the western side of the main lines and the western side of Adelaide, that is through the western suburbs, to push that water to the east.

He said, 'Maybe you ought to do a bit of investigation there, because you might find that they are trying to push more water at higher pressure through the same volume of pipe and the reality is that you can only, no matter what pressure you put it under, get so much water through a given diameter of pipe before you are going to blow a pipe.' It would be interesting to get some truthful answers on just what has happened.

The Hon. G.A. Kandelaars interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars will have a chance to talk about this in due course, and I look forward to his support. I look forward to his support looking after the constituents who he represents, rather than what he generally does, which is to look after the government. He is here elected by constituents right across the state, and he should be out there with a blue jumpsuit and a brown belt too, helping to fix these mains and helping to redress the problems with the constituents, rather than just defending the government.

One thing I have learnt in politics is that no government is perfect. I am sorry to tell the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars this, but no government is perfect, and this government is far from perfect—far, far from perfect, this government, believe you me. We will read more about that, I suggest, in The Advertiser soon after about midnight tonight, if you want to get a print edition.

We see an increase in pipe bursts at this time of the year that will continue until the rain settles down, minister Hunter says. However, this is little comfort for those left with water damaged homes, which based on the reports is a substantial number of people.

The Advertiser also reported that water minister Ian Hunter, 'is failing to speak with those affected,' instead shifting that responsibility onto SA Water officers. This is despite the minister conceding that SA Water does have areas that need to improve, including, as he stated in a recent interview with Channel 9, 'customer relations'. The Premier also recently conceded that the government must do more to reach out to people inconvenienced by the bursts. The Premier said:

What we can do though is respond quickly and also show people that we care and then actually offer a helping hand when their lives have been disrupted.

I actually agree with the Premier on that. It should include financial reimbursement. We are not talking about a profit; we are simply talking about financial reimbursement back to cost neutral for the persons affected. That is what this bill is about.

Water infrastructure in some cases is getting up to 80 to 100 years old. It is suggested that preventative maintenance work may not be happening, which is worrying, given the age of the pipes throughout the city. I know for an absolute fact, from inside sources, that when SA Water changed their outsource company from United Water to Allwater, there was a dropping of the ball and a delay of up to 12 months. The actual replacement program fell apart and did not occur.

It might have been good for SA Water's financials at that time, but they now clearly have to catch up. I know that for a fact. I ask the minister to bring in any evidence he has which proves me wrong. The opposition recently produced state budget documents which show that there have been cutbacks from $47 million to $32 million this year in the SA Water pipe network renewal program. You do not hear that from the minister, but I trust that the opposition has those figures, which show a net reduction of $15 million.

The need for this bill is clear and common sense: victims should rightfully be compensated for the damage and the inconvenience caused by the woeful state of SA Water infrastructure. This bill does not let SA Water or the government off the hook and holds them accountable for their failures, which have caused widespread damage and much distress.

The National Performance Report: Urban Water Utilities prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology, which was used by the minister to praise SA Water, also revealed other things. For example, SA Water takes the longest time, 163 minutes, to reconnect water after an unplanned shutdown. If we want to talk about other states, like the minister always does, the fastest performer was Barwon Water, which only requires 88 minutes on average. SA Water takes longer to restore services, at 243 minutes on average, than any other provider. Why? Please, minister, tell the public why.

They are ranked seventh in capital expenditure per customer to help stop leaks and breaks. They are ranked 10^th in capital expenditure per customer to help stop sewerage leaks and breaks. Thus, SA Water is one of the smallest spenders on capital infrastructure of any city service. That is the point: it is the city service. You have to compare apples with apples, and this minister tries to compare a banana with a pear. No wonder things are pear-shaped for the minister and SA Water.

The worst sewerage breaks and chokes per 1,000 properties—29 a year. SA Water ranked eighth for the number of sewerage mains breaks for 100 kilometres of water pipe. I just want to finish on the lack of compensation, as reported by The Advertiser:

Paradise resident Linton Schiller and his family have only recently returned to their Willow Drive home—10 weeks after it was inundated.

'Contemptuous was really how I'd describe his attitude when he came out,' he said [of the minister for Water].

[As at 17 May] Mr Schiller said he was still yet to receive any compensation from SA Water.

Another affected resident, Diane Vereyken, still remains out of her home and said she was yet to receive compensation aside from a $100 voucher on the day the mains burst.

I mean, what a disgrace, a $100 voucher. This bill will not only provide legislative guarantees but also peace of mind to those who are affected by SA Water negligence. I ask the government to seriously look at this bill and I would applaud the government if it wants to receive the kudos and take this bill over and put its name on it. All I want, and I am sure all my colleagues want, perhaps other than government colleagues, is a fair and reasonable compensation for the victims of burst water mains throughout the state of South Australia. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.