HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER METERS

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:04): I move:

That regulations made under the South Australian Housing Trust Act 1995 entitled General, on 29 July 2010 and laid on the table of this house on 14 September, be disallowed.

It is unfortunate that we are in November before a motion such as this is heard and at least gets some oxygen and response. The government has, of course, in this year's budget, continued to rely on the extra income that it will, we say, swindle from housing trust tenants in South Australia who have to pay for water use without even the right of having their own meter.

These regulations were introduced after the government in 2007 announced that it would start charging housing trust tenants for their water use. This was done with the support of the opposition because water use by anyone in South Australia needed to be monitored and conserved and, if housing trust tenants—like anyone else—were wasting it or using it excessively, they should also be paying. Of course, if they were eligible for concessions or free access to water—like anyone else—they were entitled to apply for it. That was an important aspect of this initial announcement.

Of course, the government has since introduced a new table of water pricing, and it is to apply to people whether or not they live in a housing trust tenancy. However, the problem with the implementation of this regulation is that the cost of this water, including what we used to know as 'excess water', is to be charged regardless of whether or not that housing trust tenant's property is fitted with a water meter.

As shadow minister for housing I have publicly opposed this policy. It identifies a stark contrast between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party to charge tenants on shared meters. There have been thousands of South Australians who have signed petitions and presented them to this parliament, protesting against this objectionable practice. For the benefit of members, the problem is this: if a housing trust development of, say, 20 dwellings has a one meter to that property, the process is that, to charge the 20 occupants that use water for the property, essentially the bill is divided by 20. You would get one-twentieth of the bill.

If you are a retired, 85-year-old person living in one dwelling and you are water conscious—with respect to waste, you might only shower every second day, you have a policy of ensuring that you recycle water as much as you can, a responsible South Australian citizen with respect to our water—you get the same bill as your neighbour. That may be a household of six people, or it might be a person who owns a truck or a taxi and washes their car with water going onto the property at night—and some do—someone who uses an enormous amount of water coming into that block.

If you are the 85-year-old living in one dwelling, you pay for the same amount of water as the neighbour who may be needing it, or abusing it—either way, but nevertheless consuming and using a significant extra proportion that relates to that property. You have rights to challenge and the ability to apply for benefit rebates back, and all this other, but the reality is you are not entitled to your own water meter. What we asked the government to do, which we think is fair, is that you can charge the individual dwelling resident for the water that they use, once you have installed the meter.

Do know what the former minister Weatherill's answer to that was? 'That is going to cost us millions before we have put that into all of the properties that are going to be necessarily eligible for an individual water meter under this proposal.' The opposition says: so what if it takes three years of budgets to bring these people online and charge them as you give them an individual meter? For every other South Australian who has access to water, whether they are a client of SA Water or someone who is now under regimes of prescription for water licensing, the important thing is the principle, and that is that if the government wants to charge for water—something which may be well advised and would have the opposition's support—it must give people a water meter.

It is just inconceivable that the government has insisted on proceeding with this policy and denying the rights of people who live in these tenancies the right to have a meter before they are charged. This is a fundamental entitlement that is being abused by this government for the people who are the most vulnerable, the most poor and the most unable to voice their objection to this, other than by the thousands of petitioners that have come to this parliament.

On the other side of this house, where the government sits, they have completely ignored those pleas. It seems as though they do not care about pensioners, people who are living in financially impoverished circumstances. If ever there was an example of that it was the follow-up to this when the federal government, in 2009, announced a $30 increase for pensioners as a one-off benefit. The Premier, at the time, made very clear public statements that those funds would be quarantined against any state grab of those moneys. The Premier's media release of 20 May last year stated:

Premier Rann says it would not be fair for pensioners who live in state housing to have to pass on a quarter of this amount as part of their rent.

It continues:

This money has been provided to make life easier for pensioners, Mr Rann said.

It states further:

It would not be in the spirit of the initiative to see some of the money flow through to the states.

The Premier makes these statements, pretending to care, pretending to give a damn about these people, and yet he allows to be approved by his own cabinet the shameful charging of these people without first ensuring that they have a meter. In addition to that, he approves through his cabinet this year's absolute pearler, which is, 'Well, look, the Sustainable Budget Commission says, "It's all right, a year's gone past now, you didn't say that you were never going to take this $30 away," so now we're going to increase your rent, change the formula for that, so that pensioners have to pay more.' So, whatever the Premier says, as long as there is a year expiry date on it, it is all okay.

We then have the most shameful, I think, concealed, secret announcement by this government (it was not disclosed in the budget) to change the formula by which people in Housing Trust accommodation will be assessed for the rate of rental that they will pay. That is a disgrace, and there is obviously public outrage about it, but these are examples that fit neatly with the government's proposal in this regard. We have heard a tidal wave of objection from the public to this imposition who say, 'We will pay if we don't qualify for concessions, along with everyone else, but all we want is a meter.'

I urge the house to support this motion to disallow these regulations and to ensure that the government is brought to account and that it announces a program (at whatever time frame it wants for the announcement) to install these meters to allow tenants to then be fairly assessed so that they will not be exposed to the risk of having to pay for someone else's waste. This is a classic example of the government being hungry for money and trying to get money from people who cannot afford it, but then being unfair in its application. If ever there was an example of the priorities of this government, it has been in the issues exposed in current media publications of the government's investment in Puglia in Italy and, more particularly, not even in Puglia but actually in the Premier's mates. That is the priority of this government.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I rise on a point of order. What on earth has this issue got to do with housing trust regulations? As far as I know we are not building trust homes in Italy.

The SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bragg, have you finished your comments?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I have lots more.

The SPEAKER: Then go ahead.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is important to appreciate is that when the Premier makes announcements—before and after the budget period this time round, because this has been implemented now for all of this financial year; these regulations were issued and are being undertaken by the minister to enable her to charge these people in this disgraceful manner—running alongside them are the government's announcements of the need to ensure that they are not exploited in some way.

The government needs to ensure that the taxpayers, like these poor pensioners, have to pay $9 million worth of extra rent or a water payment, even if they cannot have their own meter, before they get their own meter. That is just an example, and I highlight the hypocrisy of any party that purports to need to save money on behalf of taxpayers and then provides money for its mates to go to Puglia. I heard the other day that commissioner Cappo even—for goodness sake, commissioner Cappo; I thought he was back here looking after our people, like these people who are being charged for water rates—

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I rise on a point of order. It is the same point I made last time, the member is just taking the opportunity to raise issues that have nothing to do with housing trust regulations.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I again uphold that point of order. Get back to the substance of the motion, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: May I also say that, in addition to the opposition's outrage and that of the thousands of pensioners who were going to be charged and are now being charged for water rates, the war on this initiative by the government for its tax grab has also been covered in the media over the last two years. That has remained steady from the announcement of the policy to the present.

People such as Leon Byner on FIVEaa have been deluged by callers about this issue who are very concerned about the matter. I recall one publication by Channel 7's Today Tonight program in which they became particularly scathing of the government for charging tenants on shared meters.

So, we have this publication—push on ahead, bulldoze through this initiative. I am sure that, among not just members on this side of politics but also new members who have come into the parliament representing their electors for the first time, there would not be any one of them who has not received some correspondence outraged at the government's treatment of people who are living in a housing trust tenancy, in particular this shared meter aspect.

I know, because I have been sent copies of these letters as the shadow minister for families, communities and housing, the level of correspondence that is going out to other electorates and to local members, some of whom are sitting here in this parliament today. They have received these letters from people who are distraught and begging even their Labor Party members of parliament to act on these matters.

They may try, they may ring up the minister, they may send letters to the Premier, contact the other members of cabinet and say, 'Please, whatever you do, can you give some relief in our own electorates?' I hope they are, because these people need to be represented, no matter whether they live in an electorate represented by a Liberal or a Labor member. The person who has to listen here is the Premier, and the person who should hang her head in shame is the Minister for Families and Communities, who has allowed this to happen.

The other person who needs to continue to speak out on this matter—and he has made some statements—is commissioner Cappo. I hope he stays in South Australia a bit more often and does not rush off to Italy any more and makes sure that he is actually here, doing what he is paid to do at $100,000 plus for six months every year and does the job here and protects these people.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:19): I rise to support the member for Bragg in a couple of comments she has made specifically in regard to the water meters. As a new member of parliament, I have already received representations from numerous Stuart electors specifically on the water meter issue, and it really is a very difficult one for people to understand. I cannot understand it and I am sure in fairness, in their hearts, people on the other side of the chamber do not understand, either, why this is necessary. It is a cost-saving measure on the surface, but the difficulty is twofold in regard to shared water meters.

One is the fact that it really disadvantages the person living on their own, typically the pensioner living all by themselves in a Housing SA house or, more often, in a small unit. When you are sharing a meter, whether it is two dwellings on one meter or whether it is up to 19 dwellings on one meter (which is the largest example who has been brought specifically to me in Port Augusta), it is the person in the small household who is disadvantaged, because the person in the big household is the one who is only paying 50 per cent—far less than their use or far less than what they should be paying. The person in the small household—the old pensioner living or by themselves—is the one who is also very often paying 50 per cent of the water used between the dwellings, or maybe one-nineteenth share. It is the poor person living by themselves, really disadvantaged, who gets completely ripped off by the scheme.

The other really bad part about it is that it encourages people to waste water. I can give you an example. In Port Augusta—and this is one of the situations where there are only two dwellings—we have a lady in her 70s living all by herself, with no garden, a few visitors and friends and relatives coming to visit her, but certainly nobody else having a shower—they might help her do the dishes, or something like that, every now and again.

Right over the fence in the next unit is a large family with a very large extended family coming to visit, coming to stay the night, coming to have showers, coming to fill up water containers, coming to do all sorts of things, and yet the first lady is paying 50 per cent of the combined water bill, and the second family is paying 50 per cent of the combined water bill. So, she is disadvantaged, but equally importantly the family next door is encouraged to waste water, because they are only going to pay 50 per cent of the total bill anyway.

So, you get down to a situation where perhaps you have got 19—as I said, that is the largest example brought to me—dwellings on one meter and everybody there is paying a one-nineteenth of the water. There is no incentive whatsoever for anybody to take the responsible approach, that we all encourage throughout South Australia and hopefully throughout the rest of Australia as well, to conserve our use of water.

When you are going to get one-nineteenth of the water bill regardless of what you use, people just go and waste the water. They have long showers, they have gardens, they let the tap or the sprinkler run, they wash their cars, they encourage other people to come and have a shower at their place, because they do not have to pay any more for the water really anyway because it will never spread out further than their one-nineteenth. However, when that behaviour then starts to spread throughout these units it grows and grows, so the one-nineteenth actually starts to grow and grow, but nobody has got any impact on their one-nineteenth so there is no reason to slow down, there is no reason to stop.

The 19 homes do not all get together and say, 'Look, let's all conserve a bit of water and we will all drop our bills.' It just does not work that way. I really do want to support member for Bragg on this particular part of the regulations. It really disadvantages a sole pensioner living by themselves and it also encourages water waste. It has certainly been raised with me many times, particularly in Port Augusta.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (11:23): One would think, by listening to the contribution of the member for Bragg, that there is a great commitment to social housing here in South Australia and to the tenants. However, one only has to have a look at the commitment they made during the last election and the commitment they made to social housing while they were—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I will get to the water in a minute. The commitment they made to social housing was the sale of 11,000 properties when they were in government. I am sure that any one of the people waiting would be happy to be on a shared meter if they could access one of those 11,000 houses that they sold.

Let me just outline some of the things that the Liberal Party were proposing if they won government. Never mind the shared water meters, they were going to transition people out of public housing into private rental. I am sure a lot of pensioners would have appreciated that. Not one person I have come across has said to me that they would be happy for us help them into private rental. They were going to move more people into old flats. They thought that was more suitable accommodation. They were going to trash the affordable housing requirements in new developments so that young people could not access affordable home ownership, and they were going to inspect their homes whether they were at home or not. As we have heard from the member for Bragg, in her derision of the Social Inclusion Commissioner, they were happy to get rid of the Social Inclusion Unit, as well.

The presentation by the member for Bragg is very typical, because she only ever tells part of the story—she leaves a big chunk out. What is really important for members in this chamber to understand, if they decide to support the member for Bragg's motion—which I would urge them very strongly not to do—is that without these regulations the South Australian housing trust would be limited in its ability to continue its operations as legislated under the South Australian Housing Trust Act. On 14 February 2009 a notice appeared in The Advertiser seeking feedback on the content of these regulations. However, as best I can recall, there was no response from the member for Bragg.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Not a dot. She made comment about her concern that here we are in November discussing this. We are discussing it today because she did not bother to make the chamber in the last sitting week. Unlike the Liberals, this government is about building and sustaining a vibrant housing sector in this state. There has been ample time for the member for Bragg to provide a submission about these regulations. It is time now to get on with it.

It is important to be really clear about exactly what the member for Bragg is arguing against. These regulations allow me to set new affordable housing criteria, namely, price points. That is, I can stipulate the income levels of people eligible to buy affordable homes and the price levels for those houses. Supporting her motion will deny low and moderate income families the chance to buy a home before developers or investors get a chance to buy. She fails to tell you that, though. She fails to tell you the consequences of her motion. The regulations also provide—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Well, you need to read the regulations. The regulations also provide for joint venture projects, and disallowing this could impact grants from the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund. What this could do is jeopardise a program that is delivering nearly 500 homes being built in partnership between the government and the not-for-profit sector. It is bad enough that, as I said, they sold about 1,000 houses a year when they were last in government. This disallowance could stop one of the most innovative programs providing safe, secure, affordable rental for the most disadvantaged people in our community.

I can give you an example. The James Brown Memorial Trust recently received a swag of awards for a complex built in Mansfield Park. We provided $1.62 million for 20 units for some of the people with the most complex of needs. The James Brown Memorial Trust won the UDIA President's Award. It has won a sustainability award and an aged and community care award, and it was runner-up in another award. That is the sort of impact this motion is going to have.

The regulations also provide for the efficient handling of goods that have been abandoned on South Australian trust properties. What would the opposition prefer? These proceedings take longer, cost more or delay a person accessing affordable housing. Not only does she stand against affordable housing, innovative joint ventures and speedy allocation to tenants in need, she also wants to financially cripple the South Australian housing trust and take a stand against water conservation. These regulations provide for the trust to charge tenants for water. In the past, housing trust tenants with individual meters paid for excess water and those in group-metered sites paid nothing.

In a tight fiscal environment and in the middle of a drought, the government came to the view that all tenants should make a contribution towards their water consumption from 1 July 2008. Since then, tenants with an individual meter have paid for their specific consumption, while the averaging method is applied for tenants at group-metered sites. You would think from listening to the member for Bragg that it is trust tenants only in group sites who have to pay for their water on an averaging method, that they are the only ones on shared meters. There are thousands of private dwellings across this state on shared meters. They do not have separate meters. They pay higher rents or higher strata fees, or, surprise, surprise, have the averaging method—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: They don't; they have shared meters.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Why don't you—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! People will stop shrieking across the chamber.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Madam Speaker, you know I am—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Torrens!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Bragg is like a constantly squawking magpie in this place—I would say a crow, but I am a strong supporter of the Crows and I would not want to denigrate them as such—but if just sometimes she could be quiet and stop her squawking and allow other people in the chamber to hear what she is proposing, it might not be a bad thing. However, what these people in private dwellings do not have is the 30 per cent contribution Housing SA provides to cut down the cost of that water. Everyone who is on a shared meter automatically gets a 30 per cent discount on their water bill. I know that people would prefer to have their own meters and that is understandable—

Ms Chapman: Hooray, you finally conceded it.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Give your mouth a rest. You are the—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Squawk, squawk, squawk—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I tell you what they would prefer to have, if they had a choice between a shared meter and a house, they would take the house, but under you they would not have a house. They would be put into an old flat and have their houses inspected whether or not they were home.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: This is just outrageous.

The SPEAKER: The minister!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Last financial year, 29 sites with 495 dwellings had additional metering installed and 64 sites with over 1,600 properties are scheduled in 2010-11. I also remind the house that public housing tenants at group-metered sites are not charged supply or sewerage charges and are only charged at SA Water's lowest two tiers. On top of these efforts to reduce the financial pressures, the state government provides a concession to—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Bragg.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —eligible tenants that has increased to a minimum of $58 in 2010 up to $168. Concessions never increased under the Liberals, in fact, they were never introduced under the Liberals, other than when they introduced a tax. I urge members not to support this motion.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (18)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. (teller) Evans, I.F.
Gardner, J.A.W. Griffiths, S.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S.
Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G.
Sanderson, R. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
NOES (23)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Caica, P. Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O.
Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D.
Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W. Odenwalder, L.K.
Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M. (teller)
Rann, M.D. Rau, J.R. Sibbons, A.L.
Snelling, J.J. Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A.
Weatherill, J.W. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (4)
Goldsworthy, M.R. Koutsantonis, A.
Redmond, I.M. O'Brien, M.F.

Majority of 5 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

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