Bushfire Preparedness

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN (Kavel) (14:16): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Mining. Are there steps the state government can take to protect fruit growers in the Adelaide Hills against damage and economic loss caused to their orchards by contractors to SA Power Networks? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I am advised that at one orchard a contractor for SAPN has entered into orchards and substantially damaged approximately 18 rows of fruit-bearing trees. The damaged trees well exceed 150 in number. I am informed that the fruit-bearing trees were cut down as low as the first orchard wire. At another orchard on Tiers Road, harvest-ready apple trees were also cut and damaged.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:17): The member for Kavel has been all over this. I have to say, I was very surprised at the level of damage. This is a very tricky issue for the government and the local MP and the farmer who, through no fault of their own, is subject to some regulations that are in place under the Electricity Act 1996. Members opposite would be very aware of that act; it is something that they were very keen on when they were last in office.

From what I understand, the member has written to the Chief Executive of SA Power Networks, advocating on behalf of his constituent. He has also written to me in no uncertain terms about his displeasure about what has occurred at this orchard. I have to say, when I was reading the correspondence I thought, 'It can't possibly be this bad.' Then I saw the photographs and, yes, it is.

Most of us would expect that if there needs to be bushfire mitigation on trees, we understand that that is necessary to save lives and property, but if there is an economic cost you would expect that there would be some form of compensation for that loss of revenue. Funnily enough, none of that is in the act. That wasn't put in the act for a particular reason. The reason it wasn't put in the act was to maximise the sale price of electricity assets, hence the guilty party opposite.

Mr Patterson: Was that because of the State Bank collapse?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have to say, what has occurred here—sorry?

Mr Patterson: Was that because maybe the State Bank collapsed?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right will come to order. The member for Morphett is warned.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I look forward to the Liberal Party writing to this orchard owner saying, 'We had to sell ETSA because of the State Bank, and that's why you have lost your crop.' Is that the shadow energy minister's advice?

I am very concerned about this, as are, I have to say, SA Power Networks because SA Power Networks are in a very difficult position. What traditionally had happened is that SA Power Networks would do their regulated pruning directly under the lines and they would leave the rest of the pruning up to orchard owners. What had occurred—and this is not an accusation toward the current orchard that we are talking about here, but other orchard owners perhaps might not have done the clearance that was required, putting SA Power Networks automatically in breach of their own regulations. So this is a very awkward situation.

I have a lot of sympathy for what the member for Kavel has brought up. I undertake to go away and look at this urgently. To the credit of the orchard owner, there was no objection to pruning being done. There was no objection to SA Power Networks protecting areas from bushfire. What they were shocked at was the level of pruning. So I undertake to go away and look at what it is we can actually do when there is an economic loss, and try to undo the damage done by members opposite when they privatised ETSA and put orchard owners like this at such an unfair disadvantage because of what members opposite did to try to benefit foreign ownership of our electricity assets.