Mr FERGUSON (Bass) — Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate Dr Razay, bringing the MPI to the House today. I have been working, as the Liberal member for Bass, on the very same issue, including raising certain correspondence I have been receiving. I think some of that is in common with you, Dr Razay, and no doubt other members.
I have been very concerned about this issue and, as the Treasurer kindly told the House, I met with him only yesterday about the same matter that has been raised in the MPI today. It is a matter of public importance.
I am disappointed with some of the remarks from the Labor Party spokesperson on this matter. The Labor member, the Labor Shadow Treasurer, may well be proud of this as a Labor reform, but the reform is not working on the ground for Tasmanians.
It was the case that, in the face of a need for upgrading infrastructure right around the state, the 2013, I think, Labor Government lawmaking around the creation of TasWater has actually locked in some of the problematic corporate structure and the reliance on dividends that councils will continue to draw out of the business, which is part of the challenge now.
I want to remind the House that it was in, I think, 2017, that the Liberal Government wanted to take over TasWater so that this House and this Parliament could fully deal with and take responsibility for these challenges. The Labor Party fought tooth and nail against our proposed takeover of TasWater, which would have seen TasWater become a state-owned entity. It would have seen TasWater at GBE scrutiny hearings. It would have seen TasWater mainstreamed as a state-owned business, and it would have seen the House, the Parliament and whoever is in power actually in a position to take responsibility for the challenges that are being faced.
Labor fought against it tooth and nail—and won, and won, and won.
I also want to make the point that, while the Tasmanian Government is a 10 per cent equity owner of the business, it takes 0 per cent of the dividends because we did not want a situation under the then Hodgman Government where, while we were prepared to make investments after having been effectively defeated on the TasWater takeover, we wanted to make investments into the infrastructure pipeline for the business but we did not see, as Mr Winter was then mayor, ourselves then expecting a return on that investment in the way of dividends.
Why? Because it only would have led to higher water and sewerage bills. That is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party that I want to call out here and now today.
I also want to make a different point, and that is that Mr Winter has unfortunately conflated the corporate plan with the independent economic regulator’s determinations. That has been an unfortunate conflation because it is only the economic regulator that, under these laws created by Labor, can make a pricing determination.
I know the economic regulator, and respect that office and respect the person as well, but I am concerned that we are now in a situation where we have a determination which is in force and effect under PSP No. 5. I do not believe that it is operating as it was potentially intended because we now have a perverse situation where, for example, fixed service charges are linked to the size of a customer’s water connection, and that is deemed as the amount of connection fees that need to be charged on sewerage.
I see that as a huge problem that must be overcome. Without breaching into a meeting yesterday, that is the point I have made to others as well. If there can be a way for the Government to use its offices—that is, its relationship and its ongoing partnership with TasWater—I want to see the Government doing that with TasWater and with the regulator, to see whether there is a path for the economic regulator to reconsider some of these matters, potentially on the basis of the information that is now coming forward with the charging experience that customers are having.
I have been supporting a number of sporting clubs, a number of individual businesses, and also some individual householders who have not, I do not think, been mentioned yet. I could be wrong, but some householders have more than one water connection while they still have only one flushing toilet in the house. By legacy alone, they have more than one water connection and are now being charged for two sewerage connections, which is totally perverse.
I can only imagine that the economic regulator would not have imagined that scenario.
I appreciate the member for bringing the issue forward, and I ask the Treasurer and the House to help us find a pathway with the business and the regulator.
