STATUTES AMENDMENT (ENERGY EFFICIENCY SHORTFALLS) BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council’s amendments.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be disagreed to.

From memory, this matter was foreshadowed by the opposition spokesperson when the bill was in the lower house. It proposes to establish a scheme where any fines imposed for a shortfall go into a fund to be administered by the commission for the purposes of energy efficiency.

I indicated we did not support it then and I can indicate we do not support it now, for a very good reason, and that is it is not expected there will be a substantial or material number of fines. It is expected that retailers will abide by the act. In such a case we will have a scheme that will be more costly to administer than the actual funds in the scheme. I would put to the house that that is an absurdity.

I am quite happy to indicate I will consider something at some point in the future when the scheme has been in operation for a material amount of time if we are wrong, but our view—and our people work with industry a great deal—is that there is not likely to be any substantial or material amounts of money levied in penalty. I think it would be absurd for us to set up a scheme that cost more to run than the revenues it took in. I am quite happy to look at it if I am proved wrong, but I do not think it would be wise to do something as counterproductive as that at present and therefore we oppose the amendments.

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister is right; I discussed this issue when we last talked about the amendments brought by the minister, and I pointed out at the time, if my memory serves me correctly, that there was some discussion between parliamentary counsel, the Clerk of the house and me on whether such an amendment as has been passed by the upper house would render it a money bill, so I chose not to move the amendment here. I am rather pleased that in the other place the Hon. Ann Bressington moved something similar to what I was contemplating.

Notwithstanding the minister's explanation for the government's desire not to accede to these amendments, if the minister makes the correct assumption that no fines will be imposed because everybody within industry will do the right thing, I do not see that such a scheme will have any cost at all. The amendment provides that the commission must establish a scheme. I do not know that in doing that in the anticipation of possibly receiving funds it will incur any great cost. All it needs initially is for the commission to note the will of the parliament and, if at such time moneys are forfeited by the industry through transgression of the amendments passed now by both houses, at that time the commission may then put the meat on the bones and establish the workings of the scheme. All this requires at this stage is for the commission to understand the will of the parliament. That will certainly has been expressed by the other place.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No; it was the whole of the other place: it was not one member, minister. Therein lies part of the problem with an arrogant government. We know the government does not want the other place to be there and we know that the government has already put its case out there to try to win the support of the public to get rid of the other place, but the reality is that the government now understands that the will of the people is that the other place be retained, yet the minister still endeavours to denigrate it by suggesting that an amendment passed in another place is the will of one person. The reality is that it is the will of the other house and not of one person. One person certainly sponsored the amendment and won the day. The strength of argument obviously convinced the majority of members in the other place. Notwithstanding that the minister would have us believe that it is only the opinion of one person, the reality is that that is not the case.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Get on with it!

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, don't provoke me, minister, and I will get on with it. The opposition's position was made clear when we first addressed this matter. The opposition remains of the opinion that, if funds are forthcoming from any player in the industry, because they have failed to meet their obligations under the act, those funds should be applied to further energy efficiency purposes. The opposition supports the amendments passed by the other place.

Motion carried.