Dead in the water

You will also be aware that the Act defines "water industry infrastructure" as water infrastructure or sewerage infrastructure, and that "water infrastructure" essentially means any infrastructure that is, or is to be, used for the production, treatment, filtration, storage, conveyance or reticulation of water but does not include any pipe, fitting or apparatus that is situated downstream of a customer’s connection point to a water main, or any pipe, fitting or apparatus that is situated upstream of a customer’s connection point to a stormwater drain.

Where exactly does this leave the current and any future State government if it becomes necessary to cancel a licence in the interests of the public?

The Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament 2009 Volume 7 says that “... In May 2009, the NSW Government announced that the first licences have been issued under the Act. It issued the first licence to construct, maintain and operate a new recycled water plant at Fairfield as part of the Rosehill Recycling Scheme. This scheme will initially provide 4.3 billion litres of recycled water a year to industrial and irrigation customers in Western Sydney. A second licence was issued to allow high quality recycled water to be transported to users through a network of retrofitted gas pipes ...”

Is it appropriate that Ministers, rather than an independent body, have the ultimate power to grant and cancel licences?

Has the NSW government actually put in place a water industry code of conduct, a marketing code of conduct and a transfer code of conduct for the transfer of water supplies or sewerage services to, from or between licensed retail suppliers before handing over to "private" players the keys to our most importance resource? If not, why not?

Receipt of my letter was acknowledged but I am still awaiting a reply.

I entirely support the ASU’s call for all contenders at the next election to specifically state their position.