HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (WATER CONSERVATION TARGET AND SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2008. Page 2473.)

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (11:03): The member for Mitchell's bill seeks to amend the Public Corporations Act, the South Australian Water Corporation Act and the Waterworks Act in order to ensure, in his view, that the water conservation activities of SA Water become more effective than they are currently. Specifically, the bill seeks to amend the South Australian Water Corporation Act by inserting a per capita water consumption reduction target in the legislation. It is interesting to note that this bill was first moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell, who agreed for the bill to be taken from the Notice Paper and referred to the established Select Committee on SA Water. To quote the Hon. Mark Parnell:

When the committee reports it will include...an analysis of the bill and make recommendations on whether it is an appropriate one to bring back to this chamber to be passed. As the mover of the bill, I have no objection to taking this course of action and referring my bill to the Select Committee on SA Water.

Therefore, the question that should be asked is: if the original mover of the bill is willing to wait for the report of the select committee, why is the member for Mitchell not willing to do the same? In addition, given that this bill is proposing some major changes to the way SA Water would operate, the member for Mitchell has provided a second reading of five small paragraphs, with no scientific analysis to support the amendments that he and the bill's original mover, the Hon. Mark Parnell, want. Would it not have been more prudent to provide some preliminary analysis on how the bill's water conservation targets could actually be achieved? The Hon. Mark Parnell provided even less justification for the bill, essentially agreeing to send it straight to the select committee.

The government will oppose the bill for the following reasons: SA Water operates in accordance with a charter determined by the Treasurer and the Minister for Water Security. The charter cannot be read in isolation from the broader government policies and the South Australian Strategic Plan. In the 2006 election, the Rann government made a commitment to amend the legislation establishing SA Water to ensure it implements environmentally-friendly water initiatives and policies. In addition, the government committed to modernising the Waterworks Act and the Sewerage Act to ensure that they support water conservation and recycling.

The government plans to proceed with these reforms in a consultative manner over the forthcoming year. It is vital that all stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute to this process to ensure that the revised legislation delivers sustainable outcomes for South Australia.

In his speech, the honourable member referred to SA Water's contribution to government revenue. I point out that it is not unreasonable for SA Water to provide a return to the taxpayers of the state. The government uses these contributions made by SA Water towards funding services that are for the benefit of all South Australians.

The deficiencies of this bill stem from some basic misconceptions about how the government and SA Water are managing the impact of the drought. To assert that both the government and SA Water are not actively pursuing water conservation measures is simply inaccurate. This government and SA Water have implemented numerous initiatives to encourage efficient use of water. This included the introduction of permanent water conservation methods in 2003 and, as the drought developed, implementing increasingly stringent water restrictions.

The success of these initiatives can be demonstrated by the consistent reduction in the water consumption figures for the state. During the first quarter of this year, South Australian households have reduced their water consumption by around 30 per cent compared to the same period during the drought year of 2002. In addition to the successful water restrictions currently in place, the South Australian Natural Resources Management Act 2004 provides an array of strong measures in relation to water management, including prescription of water resources and the development and implementation of catchment water management plans.

There are three main themes to this bill. The first theme is the proposed amendments of the public corporations and the SA Water corporation legislation to insert requirements around water conservation and ecologically sustainable development. The government has already committed to the essence of this proposal. This commitment is highlighted in initiative 4.1 of the SA Water Strategic Plan 2005-2009, which aims to implement the outcomes of Waterproofing Adelaide, including a rolling 20-year plan for securing sustainable water resources.

The second theme of the bill is to insert a specific water conservation target which would aim to achieve a 30 per cent per capita consumption reduction by 1 July 2015 into legislation. SA Water is a supplier of water to consumers rather than a major consumer in its own right. It is therefore illogical to hold SA Water accountable for the excessive use of water in this state. However, SA Water's revised water charter now incorporates a direct reference to water conservation, requiring it to do its utmost in supporting the objectives and targets of the South Australian Strategic Plan.

Ultimately, however, it is up to consumers to reduce their water usage. The government recognises the need to target consumers when seeking to reduce the demands for water. As of July 2006, the government has required the installation of rainwater tanks in all new houses. It also offers rebates to subsidise the connection of rainwater tanks into the plumbing system for existing houses. Importantly, this initiative allows established homes to also contribute to a more efficient use of our limited water resources. The government will soon announce plans for a revised scheme of incentives to further build on these initiatives.

Further to this, water prices will not remain at current levels. Through necessity, price increases will need to occur in order to better reflect the scarcity of our most valuable resource and to enable the funding of a desalination plant. South Australia will move from the current two tier water pricing structure to a three tier one in the year 2008-09. This will mean, on average, an increase of 12.7 per cent in real terms from July next year. The sending of this price message should further encourage business and household water conservation. The government, through its commitment to implementing the Waterproofing Adelaide 2005-2025 strategy, envisages:

reducing annual mains water demand so that by 2025 consumption will be lower than it would otherwise have been by about 35,000 megalitres.

It is estimated that, of this 35,000 megalitre saving, households would contribute around 30,000 megalitres, with commercial, industrial and community purpose users contributing the rest, which is about 5,000 megalitres. If achieved, this reduction in water consumption would represent around 15 per cent of our current per annum usage.

In addition to these water saving measures, on 12 February 2008 the Premier announced the establishment of the Office for Water Security. This office will become the central point for water security planning across government, creating a more efficient and functional way of managing South Australia's water supply. Specifically, the Office for Water Security will provide support to the Minister for Water Security in driving South Australia's commitment under the National Water Initiative and in the development of a comprehensive water security plan that will help waterproof Adelaide and South Australia.

The third theme in the bill relates to the requirement of SA Water to service allotments contained in water districts. Local government is responsible for determining whether or not developments are appropriate. It should not be up to a statutory corporation to determine whether developments are appropriate. Its only concern as a supplier of our state's water should be whether it can provide adequate services to the proposed development. Underlying the government's commitment to water security is that in the last 12 months over $2.5 billion has been allocated as part of its four-way strategy dealing with this issue. This strategy includes desalination, recycling, managing water use and improved catchment management in order to secure South Australia's water supply. Importantly, $1.1 billion is being invested in the desalination plant to be built, ultimately supplying an additional 50 billion litres of water—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr O'BRIEN: I've only got a minute. I would have liked to have dealt with that—another major project that will contribute to securing Adelaide's water supply—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr O'BRIEN: I would have got on to that. I was—

The SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:13): That is most unfortunate, sir, because I am sure we were hanging out for his final words of wisdom. Might I say from the outset that I think the genesis of this bill was a meeting I had last year with the former upper house member Nick Xenophon in response to, obviously, the drought, low water flows into our reservoirs, low water flows down the River Murray, and the total inaction of the current government to address the issues.

I noted a couple of the things the member for Napier has just said, and his words were '$2.5 billion has been allocated.' I question whether the money has been actually allocated. Lots of very expensive announcements have been made, but I do not think too much money actually has been allocated. I think as we go through the budget papers this afternoon we will not see $2.5 billion, even in the out years, for major water projects in South Australia. The reality is that we have had the Treasurer, the Premier and the Minister for Water Security stand in this place, and outside of this place, and say time and again, 'We are building the biggest desalination plant in the southern hemisphere, and it will be in the Upper Spencer Gulf.'

There is a fair bit of untruth in that statement, which has been used many times. First, where does the 'we' come from? It is stock in trade for this government to use the word 'we' when it is other people and other organisations that are doing good things in South Australia. It is the same verse they sing when they talk about the production of wind energy—'we'. This government has not built one wind farm or wind tower or installed one wind generator, but the minister responsible keeps talking about 'we'.

The same applies with regard to water. The word 'we' used by this government means: 'We, the government, are doing nothing, but fortunately, in spite of us, there are some good people out there doing some good things.' That is what the word 'we' means when uttered by the Premier or a minister of this government.

Members interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Particularly on water, but on power and everything else. Unfortunately, it has a monopoly over road building, otherwise we might have some people out there building decent roads as well. I say to the member for Napier—

Mrs GERAGHTY: On a point of order, I was going to raise the issue of relevance to the question before us, but if you are going to move on to the bill, I will listen carefully.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will listen carefully, as I always do—

Mr WILLIAMS: I am pleased to hear that you will listen, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: As I always do.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am disturbed that you weren't listening intently anyhow.

The SPEAKER: Captivated.

Mr WILLIAMS: I understand there is a clause in our standing orders that prevents people making frivolous points of order, but the difference between me rabbiting on and some of your lot rabbiting on is that I tell the truth and talk in facts. That is the difference.

The point is that $2.5 million has not been allocated; this government is not building a desal plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf. The history is that for three or four years it had $25 million in the budget to build a desal plant in the Port Lincoln area. That disappeared and turned into a $48 million pipeline and, when I and my colleagues on this side of the house complained that all that was doing was taking another 1.5 gigalitres of water out of the River Murray and shipping it to the other end of the state, the government said, 'Watch this space.'

We are still watching because it is a pretty empty space and that is why this piece of legislation has been brought before the house and why we keep making the point that SA Water, which is suppose to have a charter to provide water and sewerage services to the good people of this state, has a much more important role for this government, namely, being a cash cow. That is what SA Water is about.

We had a 6 per cent across-the-board increase in water rates 18 months ago, announced by the then minister Michael Wright—the minister who has had virtually every portfolio taken away from him in six years, but who continues to sit on the front bench.

The Hon. R.G. Kerin: No-one else would take WorkCover.

Mr WILLIAMS: No-one else will take WorkCover. He continues to sit on the front bench. WorkCover is the only organisation he has been left with, and we all know what a mess he has made of that, but he continues to sit there. We had this nonsense that we were going to build a desal plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf, but the space is now empty. Now we move to a desal plant at the Port Stanvac site. We are waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting! I will guarantee that if the drought breaks—and I certainly hope it does sooner rather than later—I do not think we will ever see a desal plant built at Port Stanvac by this government.

Just like we had the $850 million announcement about this time last year—I think on the eve of the budget—for a new dam at Mount Bold, by September or October the government had changed its talking and said that it would double the storage in the hills. It got the same information we did. We will not double the capacity of Mount Bold or build a new dam there for $850 million. At least $1.3 billion was the estimate we received, and I expect it will be even more than that. The government now has that information and has walked away from that one. So, the $2.5 billion the member for Napier is talking about is illusory. It is one of those famous mirages. It is not in the desert, but on the front bench. That is where all the mirages are with this government—on the front bench.

So, the $2.5 billion is not allocated and will not be spent, which is the problem. We are putting up the rates again. We had the 6 per cent Michael Wright announced at the end of 2006; we had 12.5 per cent announced last year; and the Treasurer has been quite firm that that 12.5 per cent is of the order we will see year in, year out for at least the next four years. So water prices are going up and we are getting nothing spent, getting very little done, and getting no more water.

To talk briefly about stormwater, having brought the government kicking and screaming from a position of saying that desal is not the way to go in South Australia, it is too expensive, that it does not want it, and so on, it has done the same with stormwater, except it is a little different. The Minister for Water Security stands up and says, 'We're doing it; we're spending money.' When asked the question only this week, 'What specific money has been spent by this government on stormwater harvesting?', the answer was zip, that no money has been spent.

On Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning I downloaded from the SA Water website, the minister's website, its plan to produce 20 gigalitres of stormwater and rainwater by 2025. It is on its website and I invite the member for Napier to have a look. That is just too slow. It is about the same pace as we are moving to build a desal plant south of Adelaide. I spent a few weeks in Spain and Singapore a couple of months ago looking specifically at these issues.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: It was very nice, the weather was lovely. I was specifically looking at desal. In South Australia we are told that we are doing a huge amount of work, that we want to get it right, that it will take at least six years and that everywhere else takes six years. I specifically asked one of the biggest manufacturers/installers of desalination plants around the world, a Spanish company I visited, how long it would it take them to build a desal plant in Adelaide if we gave them the job.

He said that it would take a little while to get the permit but, that aside, 18 months to two years, tops, including ordering all the parts and materials. We should have a desalination plant operating in South Australia by the first quarter of next year. That is what should have been done if the government was serious about water. That is why this piece of legislation is before the house.

I will tell the member for Mitchell that the opposition supports the tenor of his bill, and we will certainly support it at the second reading. If it is successful, we will be moving some amendments. We are more than happy to support the bill, because SA Water is not doing what it should be doing, that is, providing water to South Australians at a realistic cost. Why on earth when we are going to have somebody else design, build and manage the desal plant south of Adelaide have we put on about 40 new people at SA Water to manage the desal project?

Time expired.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:23): I thank honourable members for their contribution. I acknowledge as described in part by the member for Napier some of the good things that the government has been doing in relation to stormwater management and the oversight of SA Water but, as the member for MacKillop has pointed out, it has done nowhere near enough. For a government that has been in office for six years, we would have expected a lot more tangible solutions by now. Waterproofing Adelaide is an excellent program and a very good blueprint for what needs to be done, but only a fraction of that has been implemented.

I acknowledge that the minister has moved to amend the charter of SA Water in line with what exactly I am proposing in this bill, so I am quite confident that I am on the right track. I appreciate the constructive remarks made by the member for MacKillop, and I acknowledge that there is room for improvement of this bill when we get to consider it in detail, but I am confident that the principle of the bill is on the right track.

Second reading negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT