The rules for the breakfast were no debate so I advised that Trevor (O’Brien, Mature Australia Party candidate) and I had booked the café after 10am because the half hour debate hosted by the ABC  was not long enough to achieve anything. As the angry old man said,  if no one comes it seems that no one cares. No one came.

When I spoke previously with Benjamin Shuhla of the ABC and asked if the debate would be a ‘marshmallow’ affair he said that it would be a robust debate.

Instead the moderator had questions like, “what impact will the resignation of the Labor candidate have?” 

I was chided for banging my fist on the table because no none would listen to a question on debating how it would be possible to reduce debt.

Can I be excused for saying that Deniliquin was a disaster? 

I write in response to your article of June 22 “Government proposal slammed” which bases its argument on some fundamental misunderstandings of water market basics. The following misleading assertions require a direct response:

“Good business models look for efficiencies and adding value for customers - especially their best customers - as part of best business practice.”

This is exactly what WaterNSW is doing. In our rural pricing proposal about to be submitted to the price regulator, IPART, WaterNSW will deliver substantial decreases in its own regulated costs of approximately 5 per cent on average – efficiencies every dollar of which flows through to our customers. Further, in that pricing submission WaterNSW is supporting our customers in recommending a tariff structure that includes (among other elements) a high variable component – because through eight months of intensive consultation with our customers that is what they have told us adds value to them.

“WaterNSW want to boost compulsory fees to 80 per cent regardless of whether the water is delivered or not.”

Incorrect. In its pricing submission due to IPART on 30 June for the next rural pricing determination (2017-21), WaterNSW will recommend tariffs, in all except two valleys, with 60 per cent variable component because that is the tariff structure nominated by our customers  after an unprecedented eight-month consultative process throughout 11 valleys in regional and coastal NSW.

“Principally they want to be paid for a delivery system, even when they’re aware it regularly won’t deliver.”

Put simply, the fact is that water and other essential infrastructure networks are largely fixed-cost businesses. WaterNSW incorporates the cost of operating and maintaining its multi-billion dollar water infrastructure network into its pricing submission. That submission is then independently reviewed by IPART which determines prices and tariff structure having regard to both the fixed and variable expenditure required.

“This removes financial incentive to deliver the actual product, water, to their largest bulk water paying customers.”

Incorrect. As a State-Owned Corporation WaterNSW places paramount emphasis on compliance with its Operating Licence obligations – both regulatory and financial – in managing water for agri-business, communities and the environment. Those Operating Licence conditions include mandatory customer service standards that our business either meets or exceeds.

As stated above, the fact is that water and other essential infrastructure networks are largely fixed cost businesses. However, delivering the “actual product” is dependent on water availability, allocations and entitlements.