Bills

National Energy Retail Law (Small Compensation Claims Regime) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the National Energy Retail Law (South Australia) Act 2011. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to introduce this bill today as a follow-up action from the power outage that occurred on 14 March. Astute listeners to this parliament might well remember the fact that our region, my region, our community suffered from a power outage on Friday 14 March that lasted for at least 20 hours. It was longer in some places, but at least 20 hours in all places, and it covered the entirety of the Yorke Peninsula, basically the whole of my electorate, and it was an extraordinary event.

It was something that I certainly do not recall having experienced in my lifetime, and it was something that had a profound impact both on the private residents of our electorate and the business community. I think that by and large the feeling across the peninsula was that it was just simply not good enough. The fact that in this day and age, in 2025, that we can suffer from an outage of 20 hours or more, and really go without what is basically a human right in this day and age—electricity supply—was really quite an extraordinary thing.

Since that time, of course, we have been fighting for compensation because in the aftermath when we finally had the lights back on, when we could finally turn our computers back on, etc., it emerged that there was no compensatory scheme that was available to anyone in my electorate who had suffered any loss whatsoever as a result of this outage, which is really quite an extraordinary thing, in my view.

We rely on electricity more so than we ever have for our phones to work, for our fridges to work. For the basic human right things that make our lives tick, we rely on electricity, and to be so profoundly let down on that day was really quite staggering, and then to have no repercussion—or seemingly at least no repercussions whatsoever for those people who provide our electricity—was an extraordinary thing, and really aggrieved the people who did suffer that loss in my electorate.

There is, of course, a guaranteed service-level scheme that operates for SA Power Networks. That is a scheme by which there are certain levels that must be met, and the initial level is 20 hours over the year without power. Once you can prove that you have gone 20 hours without power over the course of the year, you will become eligible for $100 in compensation. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure you are quite aware, that is an allowance or a compensation that will not go very far in covering the costs for some of these businesses that are out of pocket.

What is worse is despite the paltry amount that was on offer under that scheme for our situation, it was not even applicable. Because this was deemed to be a transmission failure as opposed to a supply issue and SAPN was not at fault and it was an ElectraNet issue, that guaranteed service-level scheme was not even available to the people of my electorate, so they were not able to get that.

Further, there is a relatively new small claims compensation scheme which this current government has introduced and trumpeted as a raging success because it is designed to address a gap in the wider insurance market. This is a scheme—frankly, one that I would applaud as well—that applies to energy users who use under 160 megawatts of electricity per year and would be able to claim compensation when a failure of SAPN's electricity infrastructure lease or voltage variation caused property damage or food spoilage.

This is a good scheme. When a consumer of electricity, through no fault of their own, suffers a voltage variation and their fridge is fried or their food spoils or whatever happens, they are eligible, whether or not SAPN is at fault, to claim compensation from this scheme. This is an excellent thing. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why it does not extend to power outages.

What is the difference for Joe Blow, a person on the ground, when it comes to the mode by which they have lost their fridge or lost their food or suffered their loss? What is the difference to them whether it is a power voltage or a power outage? If they go 20 hours without power and all the food in their fridge spoils or if they are a baker and all of their pastry is destroyed, what does it matter whether it is the fault of a power voltage or a power outage?

This bill that I am introducing today will attempt to expand that scheme to more wide-reaching consequences so that it can include those things, so that when my community is facing a similar situation—if it does happen again—then there will be an avenue via which they can pursue compensation from the people who provide electricity.

The excuse that we were given at the time was that it was an extraordinarily dry summer—which it was—it was extraordinarily hot, it was windy, and the insulators that are critical to the success of the power network had become so dirty that this was triggering faults in the electricity. That may well be the case, but it has stayed dry. I am not sure that we have cleared 200 mm of rain on the peninsula so far this winter. It is facing another dry summer, as best I can tell without being a meteorologist. I am fairly certain that those conditions will persist through summer and we might well be facing the same circumstances that caused the power to go out for 20 hours again when this summer rolls around. So it might well happen again.

This scheme is important and we need to take steps to do it. I am sure it can be done, because it managed to happen successfully everywhere else in the state of South Australia. As best I could tell over the summer, despite those dry conditions persisting in different parts of the state—on Eyre Peninsula, in the Riverland and to a lesser degree on the Fleurieu—the power seemed to stay on. As far as I am aware, there was not another 20-hour outage that happened anywhere else in the state across South Australia over the summer.

The power companies have managed to successfully keep those powerlines clean and on and have not subjected any other regions to extended outages like they have ours. I am sure that based on that fact they can take that treatment they have provided to other parts of the state and extend it to our network to ensure that that power stays on and we can continue to have it going forward. I will be pushing that.

I will be pushing this change in the scheme on behalf of my constituents, because a great deal many suffered a significant loss on that Friday 14 March event. I would like to give a couple of examples. I will not give every example that came to me because we do not have the time, but just a couple of examples: one of a business and one of a private individual who suffered loss and I think should be eligible for some form of compensation—and if this scheme does not provide it then perhaps it should be expanded to include them.

First is a gentleman called Adam Lobb. Adam is reliant upon medication to sustain his life, and that is not an exaggeration. It is a fact of life that he needs medication to ensure that he can continue to live a happy and fruitful life. Now, that medication needs to be refrigerated; it cannot exceed a certain temperature for fear of spoiling.

When the power went out for 20 hours, he was faced with a choice of sitting at home, crossing his fingers and hoping that it would come back on in time to preserve that medication and ensure that it lasted or packing up everything, driving to Adelaide or somewhere where the power was on—anywhere outside of our electorate, basically, hoping the power was on—whacking it in a fridge there and sitting outside of his home, outside of his comfort zone, outside of his community, waiting for the power to come back on but safe in the knowledge that his medication was preserved and able to be used.

He did pack up to go to Adelaide. He did take his medication to Adelaide, but if he had stayed in his home and waited for the power to come back on, it would have inevitably spoiled and (a) he would have been placed in a life-threatening position and (b) he would have been out of pocket for what is a rather expensive medication that he needs—it is not a choice—to survive. In that setting, I think that this compensatory scheme should be expanded to include people like Adam so that they can claim compensation to replace, if there is loss, that medication.

The second example I would like to draw to people's attention is the Minlaton Bakery. This was an infamous example at the time. Luke Martin and his wonderful wife did a number of interviews on radio and associated mediums to share the plight of businesses in our region at that time. They were faced with a terrible dilemma. The power was out quite early in the morning and they were faced with the choice about whether to call their bakers in to get started on working. From memory, I think they did. They called them in and had a wage bill that they had to cover. They then lost quite a bit of stock from their fridge, which left them with a rather hefty bill, and so on.

That business was quite out of pocket as a result of the power outage and the uncertainty about whether it would come back on, and they were not alone. There are many businesses that rely on refrigeration and other electrical-powered machinery to keep their businesses running that were out of pocket as a result of this power outage. In my view, they should be eligible for compensation as a part of this or a similar scheme so that, when and if this happens again, they are not out of pocket because, ultimately, it happened through no fault of their own.

I would like to pick up on a point that arose in the media release that the government disseminated celebrating the small claims compensation scheme and its virtues. It is designed to address a gap in the wider insurance market. That is exactly what we have found in the aftermath of the power outage. There have been precious few insurers that are willing to pay out insurance claims for loss as a result of this power outage. We are finding that most are getting rejected on account of it being not eligible under the terms and conditions that have been imposed upon them by their insurers.

If that is a virtuous enough reason to establish a small claims scheme in the first place, for that specific reason of voltage variation, would it not be the same for a power outage? If there is a gap in the insurance market that is leaving these businesses and individuals out of pocket through no fault of their own and the insurers are not coming the party to fill that gap then I submit that this scheme should be expanded to include it, so that is what I will be seeking to do today.

By way of explanation of the bill, it is very simple. It literally just expands that scheme to include power outages—not every power outage: this specifically includes unplanned outages that last for eight hours or more. As an Independent member of parliament, without the means of a bureaucracy or party behind me, I did not have a great deal of support in coming up with this bill, so eight hours is a rather arbitrary number.

We have reached that number because we have roughly estimated that that is how long food might well last in a freezer without power on with the door shut. However, I would like to make it clear to this parliament and to any stakeholders and constituents of mine who might be listening that, now that this bill has been tabled, I am very much open to assistance from the government, from stakeholders and from the community as to how it might best work.

I think that this scheme should be inclusive of the sorts of perils that I have just mentioned. However, as I said, as an Independent member of parliament, I have limited means at my disposal. Now that this bill is on the table, I am more than open to suggestions and input and feedback from different people as to what that time duration should be and what the triggers and thresholds should be to meet them.

It is basically open for consultation now. I am open to changing it and to working with the government and opposition and anyone else to ensure that it gets passed, because in my view the most important thing that we could do is fix this gap. It is a gap. We have talked about the guaranteed service levels. That does not apply. We have talked about the small claims compensation scheme. That does not seem to apply. We have talked about the fact that insurance companies do not seem to be coming to the party to cover those gaps either.

When a business or individual is left out of pocket and is facing significant financial hardship through no fault of their own, that is an issue that should be redressed, and I am seeking to do that. I do not think it should necessitate an increase in power prices. I think that we already pay the exorbitant power prices that we do currently and there should be means within those bills to ensure that our power can be kept on and those insulators can be kept clean. I completely reject any argument put forward that this will require that power prices increase, and I would like to think that we can get it done within the bills that we pay already.

In conclusion, I feel that there is likely a prevailing view within government, within the bureaucracy, that when issues happen in regional South Australia and they do not affect metropolitan Adelaide, if they sit tight long enough they will eventually blow over and go away. This is not one that I intend to let go away. This was a terrible event that happened in our region. In 2025, it should not occur. There should be no way that we are left without power for 20 hours or more in this day and age, and I intend to do something to provide compensation when it does, or if it does, but also as an imperative to the power companies to ensure that they do not let it happen.

I think this stick should ensure that they take proactive measures, more so than they are doing now, to ensure that the power stays on. The fear of having to pay out compensation will hopefully trigger some further action, or more action, from those companies to ensure that it does. I commend the bill to the house. I want to reiterate the fact that I am open to working with any party or stakeholder or constituent to find the perfect model that works so that it can secure passage. I do not necessarily contend that this is it, but I would like to think that it is a good starting point and something we can work on to build a new compensatory scheme that includes this gap in the market.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.