STATUTES AMENDMENT (ELECTRICITY AND GAS—INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND RETAILER OF LAST RESORT) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 September 2009. Page 3768.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:19): I take this opportunity to inform the house that I am the lead speaker on this matter on behalf of the opposition. In saying that, I doubt I will take more than 20 minutes to address the matter. Again, amendments to the electricity and gas legislation are of a technical nature.

I thought the member for Enfield might have been in the house because this sort of legislation is a favourite hobbyhorse of his and he always has a go, because basically it has been approved by another body. In this case, the Ministerial Council on Energy has come to a series of agreements on this matter and, as a consequence, we now have this legislation, which provides us with little or no opportunity to amend. We can discuss it and think about it but, at the end of the day, we are pretty well obliged to pass it, for better or worse.

In this case, I think it is for the better, and I will come to that in a moment. This bill will fix a couple of minor anomalies, and I can indicate that the opposition supports it. Notwithstanding that, again I take the opportunity to point out, as does the member for Enfield, that it undermines the sovereign right of this parliament and this state. Some of us do not have a problem with that but some of us do.

I turn to the bill itself. It amends—in an identical fashion, from my reading—section 11 of the Electricity Act 1996 and section 11 of the Gas Act 1997. Members may recall that earlier this year, I think it was, we passed legislation to establish the Australian Energy Market Operator. We brought together the market operators for the gas and electricity industries under one body, for obvious reasons. Notwithstanding that electricity and gas are intrinsically different, there are a lot of similarities in the way the markets operate, and we will come to another piece of legislation shortly which will highlight the differences. However, the similarities are highlighted in this particular piece of legislation.

In the earlier legislation, one of the things we did (and it has happened as we have been getting up to speed, I guess, with the national energy markets over a series of years now), because we have a market operator and market regulators, was to require market participants to provide information. Of course, these market participants operate in a commercial world, and this legislation protects the information provided to the regulators, the operators and any other people to whom participants are obliged to give information. So it protects the confidentiality of that information and protects those operators in the commercial world.

It has come to the notice of those administering the relevant legislation that this has created some difficulties. The particular difficulty that is addressed by this amendment in the first part of this bill is that, in protecting that information, we have made it very difficult for various government agencies to fulfil their obligations under various bits of legislation; to wit, the electricity regulator regulates the operation of licensed electricians but the electricians are licensed by OCBA.

So, if we have a situation where an electrician has fallen foul of the regulations and some action needs to be taken, it might be that the regulator has the relevant information which has been provided under this act but OCBA does not have the information, despite being the organisation that will take action against the licensed electrician. The same thing happens in the other part of the bill with regard to plumbers and gasfitters under the Gas Act. I will not repeat all this but just point out that it happens under both acts.

There are instances where, for the ease of management of various obligations of different agencies (in this case, the electricity regulator and OCBA managing the licensing of tradespeople), it makes sense that the information be shared. That way, OCBA (the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs) does not have to go back and start from scratch in an investigation to make a case against a particular licensed operator. It can simply receive the information that has been provided to the regulator under the Electricity Act or the Gas Act. It makes perfectly good sense to allow that information to be passed on.

New section 11(1a) contains paragraphs (a) to (f). To save the house from going into committee, I ask whether the minister in his summing up can address a question which I am going to put to him now which I would otherwise put in committee. With respect to paragraph (f), which states 'information can be passed on as authorised by the minister', can the minister outline some circumstances under which there would need to be a ministerial authorisation? Again, I am somewhat concerned about the confidentiality of this information, and I do not know that we need to cast the net any wider than is absolutely necessary. I am sure industry would not want us to cast the net any wider.

I will make the point, which I have made previously in speaking to amendments to the Electricity Act and/or the Gas Act, that I have some concerns about the rapidity with which this legislation is being taken through parliament by the government. I go back to my earlier comments about undermining the sovereignty of parliament. I think the government aids and abets that process by tabling such legislation and then insisting on its being debated so soon after tabling it. It is very technical legislation. I had a briefing on this bill and the other one (about which I will talk more extensively when we get to it shortly) only yesterday—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Yes, but you were offered it weeks ago.

Mr WILLIAMS: No.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Yes, you were.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I was not. You only introduced it a week ago.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the minister!

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The minister has been called to order.

Mr WILLIAMS: To the best of my knowledge, the briefing was arranged for yesterday. I will come back to it when we are dealing with the other bill, because there are some further comments I will make with respect to that. However, the reality, and the point I want to make, is that the opposition in this instance has not had an opportunity subsequent to the briefing to go to industry and seek its comments. I have to rely on the government, and I find that it is a dangerous practice to rely on this government when it says, 'We have been out consulting,' because this government has a pretty poor record when it comes to consulting.

Everyone across this state knows that the way members of this government consult is to get everyone together and say that they want to consult on a particular matter, then they walk into the room and tell you what they have decided. Sometimes they do it a little better than that; they give you two or three options, let you discuss them and then go away and do what they were going to do anyway. So, it creates probably even more frustration.

I just make the point that the minister's agency has probably been working on this legislation for at least six if not 12 months, and the government insists that the opposition gets its head around it in a matter of a little over a week—I think it has been a week and a half since it was tabled. I will continue to make the point that, if the minister and his agency could be more organised, I think the parliament could give better scrutiny—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Where were you last week? Were you in the South-East? Is that why you didn't come to the briefing?

Mr WILLIAMS: I represent the South-East and I actually do have—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: So, it wasn't convenient for you—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker, I take offence at the comment that the minister thinks that it is outrageous that members of parliament work in their electorate. I think it is outrageous that the minister thinks that of a member of parliament who attends their electorate office, who sits at their desk and who attends to correspondence from constituents. Members of the opposition do that from time to time, minister. I tell the minister that his government does not provide members of the opposition with many resources. Every member of parliament is supplied with two electorate staff, and members of the opposition who have shadow responsibilities and who are trying to get their head around this legislation in a short period use a large percentage of the time of their electorate staff to help them with that work. Consequently—

Mrs GERAGHTY: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is nothing of relevance in the member's comments and nothing is different from when we were in opposition. The then government gave us no resources at all. In fact, when I was opposition whip—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Torrens will take her seat.

Mrs GERAGHTY: We had less—

The SPEAKER: The member for Torrens will come to order. I think it would be best if the member for MacKillop turned his attention to the subject of the bill.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you for your advice, Mr Speaker. I was provoked. I am simply pointing out that the house—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The member for Torrens can enter the debate. I would love the member for Torrens to give us her opinion of this piece of legislation, because I will guarantee that she has never read it and probably has no understanding of it.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the member to withdraw his comment.

The SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I was busy attending with the Clerk. I do not know whether the member for MacKillop said anything unparliamentary. If he did, I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I did not.

The SPEAKER: Perhaps the member for MacKillop could deal with the bill before the house.

Mr WILLIAMS: In helping the house, I am pointing out that I would love to hear the member for Torrens' contribution to the debate. I would love to hear her understanding of this bill. I suspect it is limited.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the second time, completely irrelevantly I might add, he has reflected on the member for Torrens. He reflected on her understanding of this bill which is not relative to the debate but which is a clear reflection on her and the discharge of her parliamentary duties.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a reflection. However, the member for MacKillop needs to turn his attention to the bill and ignore interjections.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I look forward to that, Patrick. The other relevant section in the bill is that which extends the role of the retailer of last resort. In the principal act, the retailer of last resort in South Australia is ETSA Utilities. In relation to the amendment of section 23(3), we would extend the period that ETSA Utilities would be appointed as retailer of last resort from the end of financial year 2010 to 2015, that is, out by five years. The retailer of last resort mechanism is in the act to enable the continuation of business as usual, particularly for customers in a case where a retailer goes out of business for any number of reasons.

I do not believe that, since this section has been in the South Australian Electricity Act (which I understand is since 1999), it has ever needed to be used. However, I have been informed that, in New South Wales, in July 2007, a company known as Energy One did go out of business and, under those circumstances, the retailer of last resort section in the act did come into action.

The customers of that particular business were able to continue to receive the service and, more importantly, as I was informed in the briefing yesterday, the whole market kept operating; that is, there was the flow of electricity from a producer through a wholesaler to a retailer and to a customer and the flow of payment for that service in the other direction. That is basically what the retailer of last resort provides when one party (a retailer) goes out of business. As I have indicated, the opposition supports this bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:35): As the shadow minister has just said, we support this bill without amendment. I have always been interested in this part of my electoral duties but, before I continue, I want to say how much I support the member for MacKillop. I hear comments from across the chamber that he is tardy. Well, I live within two hours of Parliament House and I am in awe of the member for MacKillop who, living four hours away from Adelaide—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: It takes him a considerable time to drive here and I do not like to hear government ministers, who live 10 minutes from here, having a cheap shot at him. I will not accept that. The member for MacKillop works as hard as anyone in this place and it is dead time sitting in a motor car. Considering that the member drives about 80,000 kilometres per year in his car, I think the government ought to be providing him with a driver because it is an occupational health and safety problem that he drives so far.

This bill is all about the office of the Technical Regulator which was established when we introduced the Electricity Act in 1996 and the Gas Act in 1997. We do not quite know when we move legislation how it will work until it is road tested. Some 10 or 11 years later we might find a few hiccups, So here we are tidying up this legislation—and we do not have a problem with that.

This bill is fairly technical. Members do not quite understand what this legislation does. The basic functions of the Technical Regulator under the Electricity Act 1996—and this area is close to my heart—include the monitoring and regulation of safety and technical standards with respect to electrical installations.

I have always been concerned about the poles and wires that deliver electricity to farms across the state. This was a great Liberal initiative under former premier Sir Thomas Playford, when poles were put all over the state. It must have cost the government an absolute fortune, and there is no way in which we would ever recover the costs from the user. It was a service to the community, which was not done on a user pays system. It was a very heavily subsidised system.

The problem is that most of them were erected in the late 1950s and they are getting tired. I note that some are already being replaced, but you often see poles that are bent almost out of shape, concrete around the poles fretting and a lot of rust in the steel work. Maintenance costs are high. I hope there is a fund somewhere, because a large amount of expenditure will be required in the next 20 to 25 years to replace up to 50 per cent of this network.

The other problem is that as a result of modern living we are using more power. A lot of people living on the SWER (single wire earth return) systems have one wire running across the fields. Of course, farmers are using more power, particularly with big welders and air conditioners on their houses, so they are almost pushing these lines to their maximum capacity. So I think that in the years ahead there will be a push to increase the capacity of these lines. Of course that will mean extra wire, at least another wire or two, at huge extra cost—and I do not know whether or not the poles have to be higher off the ground to do that as well.

These are the issues that come to us as country members, and we have to be forever cognisant that, while these assets have been fantastic, they do wear out—and they are wearing out. The regulator should be telling the industry, 'There are 10 years' life left; what are we doing about that?' It should not be left just to the operators and the supplier of last resort (which is ETSA), to pick that up

The other area that comes under this Technical Regulator is that of the administration of the provisions of the act relating to clearance of vegetation from powerlines. I know that this is all a result of Ash Wednesday, but I believe there has been a huge overreaction with the clearance of these powerlines. I will not say, 'Don't do it' because, sure as eggs, there would be a fire and the speech would be pulled out of Hansard, and then it would be, 'He said not to do it.' However, we went from one extreme to the other.

We had powerlines going through pine trees and large gum trees, and all sorts of things, but now we see trees just cut off almost at ground level under powerlines. In some areas I think that is pretty extreme. Rather than saying 'We're not taking any risks,' and then 'zoom' (they are very dramatic with their pruning of these trees), I believe we could be a little more sympathetic where we have historic trees. I know that ETSA, or whoever employs the contractors, has a strong order to get rid of—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have a point of order. The bill has absolutely nothing to do with tree pruning, nothing whatever. The member is way off the subject.

The SPEAKER: Yes; I was just beginning to wonder about that myself. The member for Schubert needs to speak to the bill.

Mr VENNING: My reading of it says here, 'The administration of the provisions of the act relating to clearance of vegetation from powerlines.' Now, unless my briefing paper is wrong—

The SPEAKER: I think your briefing paper is wrong.

Mr VENNING: Well, I will check that. However, the other concern I have is in relation to the operations of the Office of the Technical Regulator—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is true that the Office of the Technical Regulator has a role in the administration of tree pruning, but this bill is not about that power. This bill is about a retailer of last resort and the ability to pass on confidential information. It has absolutely nothing to do with the role of the Technical Regulator in tree pruning.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: Mr Speaker, I take issue with that. Technically it is not what the bill does, but we are talking about the Technical Regulator, and I think you are being a little pedantic, quite honestly. If I were to talk about an entirely different subject, but this is an area that comes under the Technical Regulator's ambit of operations—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VENNING: I will drop it.

The SPEAKER: Have you finished your speech?

Mr VENNING: I do not agree, Mr Speaker, but—

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert has to speak to the bill.

Mr VENNING: I heard your ruling. In relation to where the bill amends section 11 of the Electricity Act and the Gas Act to remove the barriers from the provision of information by the Technical Regulator to other parts, I wonder why that was not so in the first place. However, section 11 requires that the Technical Regulator preserve the confidentiality of information which could affect the competitive position of an electricity or gas entity and which is commercially sensitive.

This is an extremely sensitive area. Someone has to decide what information is handed on, to whom, and for what reason. Of course, there is now a very strong commercial value on some of this information, so I would be a bit concerned and would hope that there is a very efficient watchdog to scrutinise all this. When you talk about the regulator, it is not one person; it is the Office of the Technical Regulator, so there are several people.

This place leaks, and no doubt the Office of the Technical Regulator would leak as well, so some of the information could be farmed out for commercial gain from competitors. As I said when I first got on my feet, it is an area a lot of us do not fully understand, and, in particular, the technicalities and vagaries of the commercial electricity market, so I do raise that concern. I presume that the powers that be, who certainly have better knowledge than I, particularly the lawyers, have understood that and made sure that the flow of information is always the property of the person who sourced it for their commercial advantage or whatever.

Finally, ETSA is the provider of last resort—thank goodness. With all the operators out there now, if something goes bung we do not want to be in the dark, and ETSA will be there to come in and pick up the pieces. All I can say is: over many years, thank goodness for ETSA and thank goodness for the person who created it in the first place. It has been a great provider for the state and to the government coffers. I take my hat off to ETSA because it has been a great semi-government authority over many years. It has changed its role is many times, but it is still there giving great service. We support the bill without amendment.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (11:46): I thank members for their contribution. The lead speaker for the opposition made strongly his argument that bills based on national reform from the MCE undermine the sovereignty of this parliament and, in support, he invoked the member for Enfield, who is in the chamber today.

He may note that the member for Enfield did not actually get up to make those comments on this occasion. Indeed, I think the opposition spokesman's comments would carry more weight if this were a bill based on national reform; as it is not, he may now understand why the member for Enfield, having understood it better, did not join him in those comments.

The bill has nothing to do with national reform: it has been domestically originated. In fact, the provisions continue our arrangements until such time as we reach a national position on a retailer of last resort. I make that point because the opposition spokesperson very sarcastically referred to members on this side as not understanding the bill. He may well wish to consider the plank in his own eye—and he can go off to the Bible if he wants to understand that.

He also complained that this government quite outrageously abided by the longstanding approach of this chamber that a bill must lie on the table for a week. He said that it was unfair because he was briefed only yesterday, 21 September. Of course, our records indicate that he was offered a briefing for the first time on 11 September.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I said weeks ago, and you contested that. I place on the record that I want people who read this Hansard to go back and look at the comments he made because they might be a fair indicator of the way he treats this house in the looseness of the information provided to it.

It is not my fault if the opposition spokesperson is too bone idle to take an offer of a briefing for 10 days. He says that the South-East is a long way away, but he could have flown around the world six times in that time. By his coming into this place and complaining when this government has adhered strictly to the standing conventions of this parliament, I think we understand again the approach of this member who, having had his briefing yesterday, still fails to understand it and criticises sarcastically a member on this side. I want anyone reading the Hansard to understand that about the member for MacKillop.

He will go on in the next bill and say the same thing—that he did not get enough briefing time. Of course, we adhered strictly to the longstanding conventions of this parliament and offered him a briefing at the earliest opportunity we could. The fact that the modern world is a little too fast paced for the opposition spokesperson is hardly our fault.

The question was asked: what would I authorise? The provision is there to allow me to authorise the provision of that information to, for example, an interstate regulator where it might be pertinent and relevant. I can assure people that the approach that I would take as minister—and I would hope that all would take—is that that information should be provided only where entirely appropriate.

The rest of the provisions are as have been described. We do need to maintain our provisions for a retailer of last resort until such time as we can arrive at a national position. I think that our circumstances, and circumstances everywhere, are not adequate for a worst-case scenario, but it is very important that we do agree on a better approach and this extensive approach we have. Until such time, the sharing of information would seem to me to be a completely reasonable thing. I think that is about all that was raised. I cannot answer about tree pruning, because the bill does not do anything about it.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.