In the General Business Enterprise (GBE) committee meeting in parliament last Tuesday, December 6, TasWater side-stepped a question from MLC Hiscutt, who asked (on behalf of MLC Tania Rattray) if the policy for real-time data has been costed by TasWater.
Chairman Hampton and CEO Brewster diverted Ms. Hiscutt’s question… Ms Hiscutt did not follow-up on this non-answer by the Chairman and the CEO. Nor did any other MLC present as part of this GBE Committee ~ Mr Farrell, Ms Forrest, Mr Gaffney, Mr Armstrong, Mr Hall and Mr Mulder.
TasWater continue to obfiscate on questions of importance ~ including questions which cannot be explained away by the preservation of the bottom line.
TasWater, and the State Liberal government, oppose real-time data, notwithstanding the fact that TasWater have so far not provided a cost-analysis to support their claim.
TasWater have not countered the independent analysis by Mr Daniel Taylor, which was used by the Legislative Council in their decision to support a policy of real-time data. Mr Taylor’s cost-analysis cites a tiny annual expense of $12,000.
In Tuesday’s GBE meeting, in relation to the proposed policy for real-time data, Chairman Hampton said only:
‘We could create alarm in the community.’
CEO Brewster added:
‘There is no such thing as real-time data anyway.’ [CEO Brewster makes no reference to the Tasmanian Legislative Council’s definition of ‘real-time’.]
In the preceding GBE meeting on the same day, held with the Chairman of the Owner’s Representatives Group, Mr Downie ~ representing the owners, the sole overseer of TasWater, the 29 local councils ~ Chairman Downie did not make mention of real-time data.
Failing to follow-up on their own motion of August 9, not one of Tasmania’s MLCs thought to ask a question of Chairman Downie in relation to the reporting of real-time data during this GBE committee meeting.
The 29 councils, the sole overseer of TasWater, were allowed to escape without one question being asked about their oversight on this pivotal right-to-know policy.
Nevertheless, Chairman Downie, in reply to a question by MLC Forrest, about the possibility of TasWater transitioning away from Local Government owernership, towards State government ownership, said:
‘We can make TasWater more accountable [than State government can].’
When MLC Forrest asked Chairman Downie how he thought this could be done, Mr Downie could not provide an answer. Stammering, Chairman Downie simply said:
‘Our view is that TasWater is best owned by Local Government.’
And when Chairman Downie was asked by Ms Forrest if the owners of TasWater supported the latest decision of the Board of TasWater, to resolve drinking water problems by reducing dividends to councils, Mr. Downie answered with one word:
‘Reluctantly.’
Indeed, on August 24, in an interview with Mr Leon Compton on ABC local radio, only a few weeks after the Legislative Council’s decision in favour of real-time data, Chairman Hampton spoke of TasWater’s announcement ~ released the day before ~ to reduce dividends to councils.
Chairman Hampton spoke of TasWater’s ambition to resolve, within two years, each of Tasmania’s ‘Do Not Consume’ alerts for lead-contamination, and all permanent ‘Boil Water’ alerts.
And Chairman Hampton also spoke of a possible conflict of interest with the sole overseeers and owners of TasWater, the 29 local councils:
Chairman Hampton said:
‘The Board is charged with determining what the dividends will be, and in making that decision they need to balance their competing objectives. And in some cases there’s a conflict of interest with our councils. The Board of BHP, who recently reduced their dividend, didn’t go to shareholders to ask their permission… They made the decision in the context of their knowledge of the operations of the businesss and its other obligations. And we’ve done exactly the same.’
Local councils have defended their dividends at close range for the past several years. The Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) states on its website that LGAT’s primary function is to ‘work[s] to protect the interests and rights of councils…’
There is no specific mention of drinking water governance within LGAT’s website-published objectives for their organisation. And LGAT’s website states that, ‘[I]t is funded by councils and other income earned through projects sponsored on behalf of Local Government, and a range of services and sponsorships. LGAT is an incorporated body under the Local Government Act 1993.’
Following the announcement of the Board of TasWater to reduce dividends to councils, the President, Mr Doug Chipman, said that he was ‘…shocked to learn of the decision of the Board of TasWater’.
Interestingly, in the December issue of LGAT’s newsletter, The Pulse, there is no mention whatsoever of any issue related to Tasmania’s drinking water.
The mayors of Tasmania’s two largest cities hold opposing views about the recent decision by the Board of TasWater. Launceston’s mayor, Mr Albert Van Zetten, voiced his concern about the reduction in dividends to councils. On the other hand, Hobart’s mayor, Ms Sue Hickey, said it was a good decision, in the interests of improved water quality.
Mayors’ views vary too in relation to the possibility of increasing council rates to cover a reduction in dividends from TasWater. The mayor of the Derwent Valley, Mr Martyn Evans, talked-up privatisation as a solution, while Dorset’s mayor, Mr Greg Howard, said that rates will not increase, and that savings will easily cover any reduction in dividends.
The question may be asked: Is the philosophy of the Owners’ Representatives Group, in defence of their dividends from TasWater, a disincentive to acting at all times with a view to the best long-term interests of water quality and infrastructure-building for Tasmanians?
If this conflict of interest exists in relation to dividends, as cited by TasWater’s Chairman, Mr Hampton, could it also be true that councils have a conflict of interest with regard to their role as the sole overseer and governer of TasWater?
Is it possible that this financial conflict of interest, cited by Chairman Hampton here, adversely influences the decisions made by the Owners’ Representatives Group in relation to drinking water quality and oversight?
Several residents at Pioneer are waiting for safe drinking water, four long years after the alert for lead (Pb) in 2012.
No response has been forthcoming from any member of the GMC Board at LGAT in relation to questions posed about the non-alert at Pioneer in the three years prior to the alert in 2012, in the face of several readings for lead (Pb) exceeding the health value according to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines during this time.
The GMC Board at LGAT have also been made aware of the publicly noted comments by TasWater’s present water quality officer, that, in relation to the non-alert at Pioneer, 2009 – 2012:
‘That wouldn’t happen now. I’m here now.’
A gold standard was not followed, according to TasWater’s own water quality officer, and yet neither TasWater nor the GMC Board at LGAT deem it necessary to respond to these questions.
Mr David Downie, Chairman of the Owners’ Representatives Group, has also been made aware of these issues, but following suit, Mr Downie has never provided a written a reply.
Nevermind the enactment of a open policy of reporting all drinking water data in real-time…
Pioneer’s residents may also reasonably assume that twenty-five rainwater tanks ~ installed in period of four years ~ does not reflect a functional senior management at TasWater, nor a functional overseer in the 29 local councils.
Residents at Pioneer challenge the Owners’ Representatives Group to produce just one piece of documentation to prove their representation, at any level, on behalf of Pioneer during the past four years…
Given that it was never a question of money at Pioneer, why have the Owners’ Representatives Group been silent? Does a financial conflict of interest explain their silence? If not, what is their excuse?
TasWater have encouraged Tasmanians to believe that an injection of funds will solve all issues. Politicians have tended to hide behind this idea, too, reticent as they are to dig deeper and to respond to evidence by residents, accross the state, that the problems are ingrained within TasWater’s senior management, and within the Local Government’s structure of governance in relation to TasWater.
In last Tuesday’s GBE committee meeting, TasWater’s Chairman, and the CEO, refused to answer a simple and long-standing question on an issue of transparency and budget.
Keep in mind that this is a publicly owned water authority …
In the New Year, we trust that Ms Tania Rattray, Independent, representing the Legislative Council, Mr Scott Bacon, Labor member in the House of Assembly, and Ms Andrea Dawkins, Greens member in the House of Assembly, will continue to pursue the real-time reporting of all drinking water data on TasWater’s website, on behalf of all Tasmanians.
*Tim Slade lives in Pioneer, Tasmania. Tim’s many articles about drinking water in Tasmania can be found in the archives of Tasmanian Times: HERE
• Alison Bleaney in Comments: TasWater transparently accountable? Local Councils and State Government aware of their responsibilities and prepared to shoulder them honestly with minimal cost shifting agendas and looking for the quick political fix? Chance would be a fine thing! Local Councils couldn’t throw water and sewerage fast enough to the now TasWater enterprise, so they no longer had to be accountable for the safety of drinking water; they had relied upon the ‘no look, no find’ approach for just long enough to make them realise they were just about to get into terrible strife. But they still ‘own’ TasWater and they get paid dividends now by TasWater so it would seem that this has worked to their advantage. But doesn’t that mean they are ultimately accountable for the safety and quality of the drinking water for Tasmania, however inconvenient that fact may be? And if not who is? Perhaps the Premier’s Dept could answer that vexed question. And while we’re at it, where or where is the DHHS Annual Drinking Water Report for 2014/15 and why hasn’t it been publicly released? What part do they play in the responsibility for safe, clean, non-toxic drinking water for Tasmanians?
• ABC: TasWater’s $2.4 billion in needed upgrades could see corporation sidelined, Eslake says
• Tim Slade in Comments: A further aspect of the broken council model of oversight is that mayors and General Managers filter / withhold information that should go to councillors. This means that the democratic system of publically elected councillors is being bypassed in many instances. This occurred at numerous councils when I attempted to send communications to the one central council address of the 29 councils, for referral to all councillors and the mayors, in April, 2016. My communication were to inform councillors that this topic of real-time data was on the table. But the majority of mayors and General Managers, even upon repeated e-mail request, refused to confirm to me that they had forwarded information to councillors. For example, this happened Clarence (President of LGAT), at Break O Day, West Tamar (GMC Board Member at LGAT), West Coast, Waratah-Wynyard, Northern Midlands (Chairman of LGAT), Dorset (who took the original motion to LGAT under the previous mayor, Barry Jarvis), Break O Day, Southern Midlands, Sorell, King Island, Huon, Kentish, Glenorchy, George Town, Central Highlands, Central Coast (GMC Board Member at LGAT) and Brighton. The direction to do this, I believe, may have come from the top of LGAT, since I was sent an e-mail copy of correspondence sent by a senior LGAT worker about me to all and sundry within Tasmanian government. Obviously, this is a ridiculously high number of mayors / GMs who are acting outside of… correct protocol. So when TasWater are also dysfunctional and secretive, you have what you’ve got now…
