Indeed,we are poorly served by our so called "leaders". They have been bought,lock,stock and barrel by the captains of industry and finance.The national interest is certainly not their interest.Their interest is solely profit.We have a nation run by moneygrubs.

I think the best outcome of this coming election would be a hung parliament - ie,Greens and independents holding the balance of power in both the House and the Senate.

I echo Manorina's thoughts. There are concerning implications in the privatisation of water and indeed in the energy and agricultural sector in regard to foreign ownership.

The Greens are calling for an agricultural register to keep track of who owns our food resources to maintain a grip on biosecurity - perhaps this should be extended to essential resources like water as well. Profit should not be the motivator for community resources - there is an important place for profit and innovation but not at the expense of community wellbeing and sovereign rights as we choose to define them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/28/2966825.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/selling-the-farm/part1/

The Centre for Public Integrity website outlines some of the consequences and one has to ask why our leaders are refusing to represent the people on these important issues.

Water security is very much tied up with biosecurity and food supply.

I agree the issue of water security is vitally important and yes I believe water should be controlled by the Government for the people not as a source of revenue from corporations.

What I don't agree with is the approach of this article rather the excessive hyperbole and hysteria should be substituted by facts....the point is almost lost by the chicken little hissing and spitting.
10/10 for raising the issue.
2/10 for the presentation.

the timeliness and urgency of the topic of "who controls water and what's it going to cost us in the end?" is just right.

why is water a non-issue in the coming election? Because we're such wastrels when it comes to water it's as if there's no tomorrow.

we assume cheap water will always be around, and when it isn't one of these days, and we're paying top dollar, we'll be "raising questions in parliament" but the horse will have well and truly bolted by then.

we'll be well and truly "sold down the river" for a farthing then and wonder how that could have happened to such an egalitarian mob like us!

150 SENATE Thursday, 9 August 2007
(Question No. 2971)
Senator Bartlett asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and
Water Resources, upon notice, on 29 January 2007:
With reference to the Government’s water policy—
(1) In Australia, is the water that falls on a person’s roof, the property of that person or the property of government.
(2) If it is not the property of the individual person, under what legislation in Australia, are rights to water that falls on a person’s roof vested in governments, as claimed under clause 2 of the National Water Initiative (NWI) agreement.
(3) Under clause 2 of the NWI agreement, can governments, at their discretion, set entitlement regimes for the use of water that falls on a person’s roof in Australia; if so, under what circumstances would state and federal governments issue a specific entitlement to persons who capture water from their roof and what would that entitlement be.
(4) What magnitude of rainwater collected from roofs would be sufficient to warrant the issuing of specific entitlements to use this class of water as has been proposed by the National Water Commission.
(5) Does the Government rule out setting an entitlement regime for persons to use water collected from roofs in rainwater tanks; if so, will the Federal Government ask the state governments to amend the NWI agreement to make clear that no rights to water that falls on a persons roof are vested in governments.
(6) Is it correct that section 7 of the Victorian Water Act 1989 states, ‘The Crown has the right to the use, flow and control of all water in a waterway and all groundwater’; if so, is it the Commonwealth’s view that, for the purposes of the NWI, water from a person’s roof comes under this definition.

Posted by Greg Cameron

(7) Is it correct that section 392 of the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 states, ‘the rights to the control, use and flow of…all water occurring naturally on or below the surface of the ground, are States water rights’; if so, does water from a person’s roof come under this definition.
(8) Is it correct that section 19 of the Queensland Water Act 2000 states, ‘All rights to the use, flow and control of all water in Queensland are vested in the State’, where: (a) ‘water means … (a) water in a watercourse, lake or spring; (b) underground water; (c) overland flow water; (d) water that has been collected in a dam’; and (b) ‘Overland flow water does not include … water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks’; if so, does water from a person’s roof come under this definition.
(9) Is it correct that section 124 of the South Australian Natural Resources Management Act 2004 states, ‘the occupier of land is entitled to take surface water from the land for any purpose’ and does surface water mean ‘water flowing over land’.
(10) Is surface water in South Australia: (a) water that is not captured and controlled; and (b) no-one’s property.
(11) Can water that falls on a person’s roof in South Australia be surface water.
Senator Abetz—The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
(1) It is difficult to apply the concept of ‘property’ to naturally occurring water. It is better to look to the various ‘legal rights’ which arise in relation to that water. All states and territories have passed legislation which provides that the state or territory has primary rights of access to water, though these primary rights vary from state to state. Subject to these state and territory primary rights, and other relevant laws, the owner of the land will have certain rights in relation to water which falls on their land, including roof water.

Posted by Greg Cameron

(2) Historically, under the common law, rights to water were incidental to owning land (riparian rights and other related rights). Over time laws have been enacted by states and territories to vest the water in the Crown and provide for sensible water sharing in an arid continent. The reference in clause 2 of the NWI is to these concepts in the state and territory regimes.
(3) State and territory governments could establish entitlement regimes in order to regulate the use of water that falls on a person’s roof. These entitlements to use the water would be issued pursuant to legislation in each jurisdiction. The circumstances under which state or territory governments might issue specific entitlements in
relation to the capture of water from roofs, and the nature of that entitlement would be a matter for those governments.
(4) This decision is a matter for each of the states and territories. It has not been proposed by the National Water Commission.
(5) The Government sees no need for such an entitlement regime but as stated in response to part (4) of your question above, this is a matter for each of the states and territories.
(6) (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) These questions go to the legal interpretation of state legislation. The Commonwealth is not in a position to provide an interpretation of these provisions for the purpose of answering these questions as these are not matters which are currently the subject of Commonwealth responsibility or policy development.

Posted by Greg Cameron

This is all very worthy and all.

But certainly in NSW, governments have consistently shirked their responsibilities in this area. As a result, we have been in a constant water "shortage" situation for many years.

There is plenty of water available, if we are prepared to pay for it to be collected, cleaned up and delivered to our houses.

If the government can't, or won't do it, then it seems reasonable to put it out to tender.

Granted, the price might go up, if you want to fill your swimming pool or hose down your driveway every weekend. But that would have to happen anyway, if by some miracle the government got off its fat backside and invested in the necessary infrastructure.

Which would you prefer, as much water as you can afford, or be kept in a state of permanent shortage by incompetent bureaucrats?

Agree Bernard and Manorina with everything you said.

Something like this would be by miles THE most critical policy to look out for- and judging by the history of both Liberals and Labor (and judging by the similar shallowness of the candidates today), neither would have any qualms doing such an abhorrent act.

Pericles you leave out two very distinct possibilities:
1- that there would be a competent government or public entity to take over management (easier to do if the public got off their backsides and simply voted for someone else).
2- that a private company would not be equally incompetent as the government, and if given control would change absolutely nothing but the price tag, knowing well that they cannot be held accountable if they own it. And judging by the sale of Telstra, Sydney Airport, Qantas, and the numerous public/private or fully-private ownership grants on infrastructure like the Lane Cove tunnel, I'm most definitely not holding my breath on water being the first success story. Especially considering the entity most likely to step up is our dear friend Macquarie Bank.

It would more come down to the possibility of better management from a different party or public entity to be voted in at some point, or the likelyhood of finding someone honest- BUT willing to take control over public infrastructure (such a thing to me seems like an oxymoron), and this entity continually remaining in competent hands (a trust, perhaps?).

This is a news blog, today.

>> The United Nations General Assembly has declared that access to clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right.

40 countries failed to support the resolution that led to the declaration, including Australia.

Some of those who abstained were concerned that the resolution did not clearly define the scope of this new human right and the obligations it entailed.

Many states also worried that the vote would undercut an ongoing process to build consensus on the issue currently underway at a different forum in Geneva.<<

The forum in Geneva is about the capitalisation of water as a resource, this time it seems the U.N. is on our side.

29 July 2010

Mr. Bernard Eddy

Lynne Kosky, ex Victorian Minister for Transport, on leaving her position last January, to a pertinent question replied; “who wants to run a railway”?

She had just frittered one thousands three hundred and fifty millions of taxpayers’ dollars on a ticketing system that will never perform the task for which it was intended.

All politicians we elect to administer our resources cannot be but like Ms. Kosky.

If these people cared about the wealth of our nation, if these people were trained to seriously work, they would not trust patently interested gamblers near that wealth.

Really, the ones I cannot understand are not the politicians, but those who elect them unconditionally, just on their words.

Take the new girl Gillard and her opponent Abbott. Where are their leadership qualifications?

What about penalties if they are not fit for the job despite their claim.

Or is our voting just a game of chance.

‘Until we start questioning ourselves first and then the ones who aspire to a position that implies our personal and collective future, we cannot call ourselves responsible humans nor ask responsibility from others’.

To the manorinas and pelicans of the post.

Great hysteria, shame about your narrow focus. So suppose you are

nice and comfortable in your private enterprise housing estate

making you thousands in profit as years escalate housing prices,

bloating your back pockets! Shame about the homeless eh. And do you

winge as loudly when governments hold down taxation with innovations

such as joint PP investments in Australian infrastructure projects.

And where would be national defence without private investment: No

bullets and bombs! Not on our side at the least. What fools are you?

When I was a kid the water supply was unmetered. You could leave the tap running all day and only worry about how long it would take for the puddle to dry up. Playing under the backyard sprinkler was a summer past time, and filling the swimming pool was a guilt free exercise. Now I regularly hear about the immorality of having a lawn or flushing the dunny when I take a piss.

Water demonstrates the dishonesty of the population growth cult mantra "More people = more and for less". As water privatisation shows, the objective of the growth cultists is to to stuff up the Australian lifestyle for the sake of profiting a few parasites.

Manorina,
Our leaders were bought by the Captains of Industry ? Well, from what I see everywhere the Captains of Industry in turn continue to be bought by the consumers.

I would be amazed, but unfortunately, not surprised, if many voters would not weigh this as an issue into the election.
I am also very disappointed with how few answers this article has received.

But I would like to ask anyone skeptical about this if they could make a list of Australian issues (that is, ones actually likely to happen as a result of electing any party) MORE serious than water privatization and its full implications (especially, again, considering that this is Australia and the companies or individuals most likely to 'step up to the plate'.
Go ahead, give it a try.

(i) Trade [exports] = Liberal/National Country Party = significant support and backbone for the economy: this is what the Party should represent and be a primary focus
(ii) Supporting business = Liberal = exports, employment growth & stimulation of economy
(iii) Surplus = Liberal - strong economy/eases financial pressure for most Australians.

However, most of the benefits enjoyed by Australians years ago has been to the credit of Peter Costello and previous Treasurers. Without a highly intelligent Treasurer and Economist keeping Australia's deficit low and in check, Australians will be struggling financially. Period. Disregard who ever plays King or Queen for the Term [and their teams]. Factor in the Treasurers of each party also.

Hi Bernard, it is occurring within other states of Australia also.

If you find time to research other State governments you will discover that a major Singapore company and its subsidiaries, already own and control 50% of many Australians water supplies.

The shock and horror is about to commence when Australians discover that their water bills are about to double shortly and in all probability discover that, through no foresight, gross mismanagement and overspending by governments, that there wont be a shower to enjoy daily, in addition to enjoying the clean clear uncontaminated water consumed over the past 20 years.

I recommend people commence boiling their water if they continue to be ill [minus viruses and other health factors ruled out] in addition to requesting your state government to test water in your homes regularly for the correct content percentages ie chlorine/lime levels.

Other helpful tips are to request that your pipes are checked every few years, given that many pipes in various city suburbs, laid 20 years ago, have now been discovered as pipes that should not have been laid at all. Many leak and disintegrate causing expensive plumbing problems and can interfere with the quality of drinking water.

In closing, I suggest further that Australians start lobbying governments for the payment of water tanks to be installed in their back yards.

If governments over past years had done their homework correctly, more dams and innovative concepts could have been introduced and implemented prior to 'significant' drought that continued over the past 30 years.

An excellent and overdue article Bernard.

Kind regards.

I've no idea which State you live in, we are unique, but it cannot be NSW.

>>...when Australians discover that... through no foresight, gross mismanagement and overspending by governments, that there wont be a shower to enjoy daily, in addition to enjoying the clean clear uncontaminated water consumed over the past 20 years.<<

In Sydney, we have had restrictions placed upon our use of water since 2003.

We have also been aware since 1998 that we do not enjoy "clean clear uncontaminated water"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/04/2918559.htm

So the future you describe has been with us for some considerable time.

Even if we forget the previous decades of neglect that gave rise to the problem in the first place, our government's response has been underwhelming.

Mainly, one suspects, because if they tell us that we need a few billion of investment to regain the position where we can get all the "clean clear uncontaminated water" we need, they would expose themselves to excruciatingly close scrutiny of the billions that they have wasted on less vital projects.

We, too, have had our public transport ticketing fiasco, wasting a billion on failing to implement the kind of system that other cities around the world have taken for granted for decades.

Given such comprehensive and abject incompetence, it is little wonder that they have to turn to private enterprise. There's not a single government minister, politician or public service employee in this State who could run a cake stall at the Saturday market without bankrupting themselves, let alone be responsible for managing a key resource.

Much as I find them congenitally appalling, I'd even settle for Macquarie Bank.

From a WA perspective we still have restrictions, but governments of both sides of politics have invested in water and are just about keeping up. The cost of technology such as desalination plants (and their carbon footprint) may appear problematic at first, but in the long term this solution, along with more efficient use of stormwater and wastewater, allows some level of comfort. It will cost...but that is just a fact of life.

The problem with total privatisation (our water utility is 51% government owned 49% private) is that you end up with numerous duplications of service which often leads to underinvestment in infrastructure due to a focus on keeping prices competetive in the short term.

Pericles, considering NSW Labor Politician's tendency to actually join Macquarie Bank executive jobs after quitting their government jobs (consisting mostly of selling them public assets), I'd say it's obvious why they are neglecting infrastructure (ie their JOB). It would most certainly be well within character- not to mention added up to their history of selling hospitals and schools to flog off the real estate.

On the Macquarie Bank side (or for that matter, most companies lobbying to purchase public property), there is absolutely no basis to assume they will improve the quality of assets to consumers. Why would they? Their only job is to increase returns flowing to their investors. Once they gain control over a sector to which people have no choice but to use (with zero competition to change services to), they have absolutely no need to actually do anything but jack up the price. It's not like people are going to stop drinking (or for that matter, insist on catching a train to Canberra to use their airport to avoid Sydney airport's extortionate entry fees, parking fees and trolley fees, or endless miles of hassling vendors in the duty free section).

I agree King Hazza. This is an important election decider for me as well but I fear there is not much between the two majors as far as the preference vote goes. A Green senate is what is needed but is the public finally fed up enough to give the major parties a wake-up call. I fear not quite yet as diver dan's post implies.

Seems that way Pelican- but as a considerable amount of people that vote pay absolutely no attention to politics, it would not be hard to conclude that the majors would get in not on substance, but simply by which stereotype would spook least those who don't know better;
That is, the choice between the big mean capitalist party, the communist party and the flower-power party probably IS the genuine criteria of voting for many Australians. Many wouldn't even know what "Privatization" even means, so long as we averted a scary communist government, being forced to live in a treehouse, or invasion by a country most don't realize is actually a democracy itself, with a largely non-violent diplomatic stance.

The problem with private infrastructure is that the public pays through the nose. In the case of roads, the figure is six to seven times the capital outlay, and there is no reason to believe that water would be any different.

There is nothing inevitable about the push for privatisation either. It is inevitable only inasmuch as the high immigration policy of government is creating water supply and infrastructure crises. Without a high immigration policy there would neither be crises nor inevitability. "Inevitable" is a word used by some to push their own agenda without wishing the motive to be scrutinised. "Inevitable" is a fine description for death and taxes, but surely not for a policy determined by elected representatives? Some 70% of Australians oppose the current high rate of immigration. In contrast, the Citizens Electoral Council, with a mass immigration political platform, has the support of about 0.1% of voters. Why then should a continued rate of high immigration be inevitable?

How is paying seven times more for infrastructure economically beneficial? Is this simply another example of the doublespeak of the population growth cultists?

Not to mention Fester water privatization is only 'inevitable' if the politicians in charge were itching to make a buck off selling it and don't really care- and we throw our support behind them anyway.

There is no logical or moral justification or excuse one could possibly make to warrant selling water rights, if the best reason is filtering and purifying (ignoring that most modern household appliances, including refrigerators, have their own filtration units as a standard feature).

Not that that would stop them from simply selling the water and not even pretending they did it for our benefit at all.

King Hazza

I also think it a given that there is a strong profit motive behind the privatisation push. But the push would come to nothing without the belief that population growth is a driver of economic prosperity.

To all, here is a range of terms you used in this thread that absolutely alarm me.

Privatisation push, inevitable, selling our rights, public pays through the nose, no basis to assume they will improve the quality, no choice but to use, we do not enjoy "clean clear uncontaminated water", billions that they have wasted on less vital projects, already own and control 50% of many Australians water supplies, our leaders were bought by the Captains of Industry, trust patently interested gamblers near our wealth.

If we had a government with 10% vision we would have spent the BER billions on water, and actually achieved something even though half the money would have been legally swindled from us. No government of the last thirty years has protected our homogeneous right to cheap sustainable water supply for our nation.

Here are the price rises over the last two years.
QLD 32%, NSW 36%, NT 26%, WA 30%, TAS 27%, SA 25%, ACT 30%, Victoria deregulated and "increases" vary between suppliers, but Vic is cheaper than QLD and NSW. I am opposed to foreign ownership of vital resource such as power, water, and land. I want Australian control of these things if the shiesen and the fan collide.

Those price hikes are for electricity and gas, not water but the numbers are similar.

Here are the price rises over the last two years.
QLD 32%, NSW 36%, NT 26%, WA 30%, TAS 27%, SA 25%, ACT 30%, Victoria deregulated and "increases" vary between suppliers, but Vic is cheaper than QLD and NSW. I am opposed to foreign ownership of vital resource such as power, water, and land. I want Australian control of these things if the shiesen and the fan collide.

Sadly, the horses have bolted Sonofgloin, hence Bernard's Thread; similarly, as have most of our companies and land been 'sold down the river'. In respect to Land and development; I came to terms with this years ago; positives for Australians in relation to acquiring homes however sad and disappointed regarding the wonderful old notorious companies forced or lured to sell out during tough times with zilch government support or tax breaks.

Land, Food, Water: what's next on the list? Our whole country and its people ie 'communism'?

We Are Unique- and given that our government(s) is probably the most privatization-happy and nationalization-fearing in the Western World, there is zilch chance that they would even try to call the horse back, so to speak- unless a party that seriously endorses nationalization comes into government.

Sonofgoblin and weareunique.

With a rapidly growing population, expensive infrastructure is always required if living standards are to be maintained. So it is no surprise that utility costs have rocketed as a result of the recent population spike. The alternative view that governments have suddenly become incredibly inefficient makes no sense to me.

My view is that the idea that population growth as a driver of prosperity is an unproven, perhaps false, concept pushed by some for their financial gain. Is this view unreasonable?

One test is that of substitution. In this instance, substitute AGW as a concept. Now, some people believe that AGW is a false idea promoted by some for their financial gain. They believe that AGW has little supporting evidence, and that a substantial body of evidence is needed to support a concept. Yet, funnily enough, some of the same people accept population growth as a driver of prosperity when there is little evidence that supports it. In fact, I suspect that a grinning idiot with his thumbs up would be sufficiently persuasive for some of them.

Fester:>>With a rapidly growing population, expensive infrastructure is always required if living standards are to be maintained. So it is no surprise that utility costs have rocketed as a result of the recent population spike.<<

Fester, I can't agree. Grids and utility supply channels cope in all the states daily, with the exception of excessive demand due to the weather. The extra costs are to pay for infrastructure that successive governments let run down because they put the majority of the returns into consolidated revenue not the utility.

>>My view is that the idea that population growth as a driver of prosperity is an unproven, perhaps false, concept pushed by some for their financial gain. Is this view unreasonable?<<

It is the view of the entrepreneur, the more clients the better. But there is such a thing as sustainability, critical mass if you like. I agree with you.