Statutes Amendment (Electricity and Gas) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lucas–1]—

Page 7, lines 10 to 32—Delete the clause and substitute:

11—Amendment of section 48—Entry for purposes related to infrastructure

(1) Section 48—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) Despite subsection (2), an electricity officer may exercise a power of entry referred to in that subsection without giving notice in accordance with subsection (2) in relation to electricity infrastructure situated on land that is in the area of a council and in the bushfire risk area if—

(a) the purpose of the entry is to conduct an inspection of the infrastructure; and

(b) at least 2 months before the inspection, the electricity entity published a prescribed notice—

(i) in a newspaper circulating throughout the State; and

(ii) in a newspaper circulating within the area of the council; and

(iii) on public radio broadcast services operated by at least 2 radio broadcast service providers who broadcast within the area of the council; and

(c) the inspection is conducted during the period specified in the prescribed notice.

(2) Section 48—after subsection (7) insert:

(8) In this section—

prescribed notice, in relation to an inspection of electricity infrastructure by an electricity entity in the area of a council, means a notice that specifies the period (of up to 2 weeks) during which the entity proposes to inspect its infrastructure in the area.

On behalf of the Liberal Party I move the amendment standing in my name. As I outlined briefly—it seems to be months ago now; I can't remember how long ago this was—the background to this is that the shadow minister, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan, spoke at length in the debate in the House of Assembly. To put it as simply as possible, this particular amendment that he has drafted on behalf of the Liberal Party relates to the entry to private land for purposes related to infrastructure.

The Electricity Act 1996 currently permits authorised officers to enter private land to inspect its electricity infrastructure, but must give reasonable written notice to the occupier stating the reasons, date and time of the proposed entry. Clause 11 of the government's bill proposes to allow authorised officers to enter private properties for the purpose of inspection of electricity infrastructure with no notice in areas prescribed as bushfire zones.

When this issue was debated in our party room, a large number of members, in particular those who represent rural and regional electorates in South Australia, expressed strong concern on behalf of their constituents at the government's intentions in relation to this particular provision. That is, that these authorised officers could just enter private properties without any notice at all in relation to the work they needed to undertake, and which everyone acknowledges needs to be undertaken.

The amendments the member for Stuart has drafted on behalf of the Liberal Party include the following provisions: that at least two months before the inspection, the electricity entity publish: one, in a newspaper circulating throughout the state; two, in a newspaper circulating within the area of the council; and three, on public radio broadcast services operated by at least two radio broadcast service providers who broadcast within the area of the council.

The member for Stuart is aware that SA Power Networks and others are opposed to these particular provisions. Speaking on behalf of, in particular, rural and regional members who represent rural and regional electorates in South Australia and rural and regional constituents in South Australia, they believe that it is not an unreasonable provision that there should be some notice given prior to authorised officers entering private land. That is the current arrangement.

The Liberal Party's position has been to try to seek some degree of compromise on this; that is, not to go back to the old position, but to at least seek some compromise by requiring some form of notification beforehand. However, as I understand it—and the government can speak for itself—the member for Stuart has advised me that the government and SA Power Networks do not support the compromised position that has been put.

In moving the amendment in my name, I would urge crossbench members of the Legislative Council to support this particular amendment to allow, at the very least anyway, further consideration and discussion with the government in relation to what rural and regional members of the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council believe is an important issue in this particular bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I know I am jumping in before the honourable minister, and I generally would be very courteous and not do that, but on this occasion I am jumping in. I want to advise the council that Family First has spent quite a bit of time looking at this particular amendment and on this occasion we will be supporting the opposition with this particular amendment. The reason is that, as the Hon. Rob Lucas correctly pointed out, this mainly affects rural and regional property owners, more so than it does city folk, because there are, obviously, vast expanses of powerlines that run through rural and regional properties.

We strongly support, as I am sure everyone in this state would, the right for SA Power Networks or anybody else—ElectraNet or whoever it may be—to enter without notice when there is an emergency such as a bushfire or a powerline down or, as we have seen in recent times, a whole major power grid down. Clearly, that is an emergency and we must always give all services relevant to that emergency immediate access without notification warrants or anything like that.

It is interesting to look at SA Power Network's subcontractors, Activ. Activ has quite a lucrative contract, I think, smashing beautiful trees down to the point where those trees cannot grow anymore, on many occasions. One thing that Activ does, whilst they might go in there and their chainsaws are very vigorous, is to go in there after giving notice to the property owner. That is notwithstanding the fact that at law they go in there under the same provision as SA Power Networks or ElectraNet.

There are often easements, not always, registered on titles for the purpose of the construction, maintenance and carriage of those particular lines. If Activ can give primary producers and landholders notice before they go onto the property, then why should not SA Power Networks or ElectraNet do that? For a start, when they are just checking lines, a lot of the time they do it by helicopter these days, so they are actually up in the air with special binoculars, looking at the insulators.

On other occasions, when SA Power Networks go around, they can see a lot of the powerlines from the road with special binoculars, and I see them around our own farm, using those to pick up whether there is a fault in that insulator. However, at times they have to come onto the property, not just for inspection, but for maintenance and replacement. If it is maintenance and replacement and not urgent repair, they are going to spend some time preparing, believe you me. Most of the time, in the rural and regional depots, they are only going to have limited replacement equipment and they have to order those transformers in, in any case.

A farmer may have stock in that paddock, it might be a fairly significantly-sized paddock, and if he or she does not know that SA Power Networks or ElectraNet are entering the property, then it may well be that that person leaves the gate open because they do not see the stock because they are over the hill, and then the next minute the farmer has got a problem because his stock are out.

Or it may well be that in that paddock, on the other side of the hill, the farmer is spraying and he may not want to have anyone actually accessing that back paddock while he is spraying. They are just two reasons; I can think of many others. It may be that it is in the middle of the highest part of the bushfire danger season and he does not actually want vehicles entering there at certain hours. If he or she is notified, they can then negotiate with SA Power Networks or ElectraNet to say when they come in and that they do not want them in there on a high fire danger risk day.

So, I actually think that this is a sensible and fair amendment, and it is one that also starts to address the situation many members of parliament have had many complaints about, which is the way the NRM go about their business, enter properties and do inspections and things without warrants, without notification and without identification at times, allegedly. It is time the parliament actually sent a message to these agencies, be them government or non-government, that we are not going to let them ride roughshod over our constituents simply because they, for expediency, do not want spend a little bit of time notifying.

Between houses, if the government wants to tweak the opposition's amendment as to how the notification occurs, or something like that, then we would be prepared to listen to that debate, but the essential intent of this amendment is one that I believe does have merit, and I advise the house that we will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be opposing this particular amendment. The government opposes the amendment after taking advice on the proposed requirements from South Australian Power Networks. SAPN has advised that a requirement to provide advanced notice of an inspection to a property owner in two months is unduly restrictive. I am advised that SAPN is of the view that inspections need to be undertaken in a more dynamic manner and primarily in response to recent weather patterns, particularly heavy falls of rain, which may result in an inability to enter a property due to flooding.

The proposed requirements could lead to a requirement to issue a new notice and a further wait during the requisite two months before seeking to enter the property again. These delays to the inspection raise a concern that the fire danger season could be in operation before SAPN has had a chance to adequately inspect the power lines to proactively assess any potential fire danger and maintain public safety.

I am advised that SAPN officers exercise a high degree of common sense and provide clear information to a homeowner prior to entering onto premises. I am also advised that it is most likely that SAPN officers would undertake this work during ordinary business hours. The government strongly supports the amendment to section 48 of the Electricity Act 1996, as set out in the bill, which allows entry onto private land in a bushfire risk area without notice to the landowner, or if the entry is pursuant to an easement or other right.

It is important to note that entry must be at a reasonable time of the day. If these conditions are not met, then SAPN must give reasonable notice to the owner or occupier providing the reasons and the date of the intended inspection. These safeguards are intended to strike the right balance between the maintenance of important property rights and the necessity to ensure that vegetation is well-maintained ahead of the summer bushfire season.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: In terms of section 48(2)(b), how does the government define 'giving reasonable written notice'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised it is not defined in the act, but it would be the ordinary meaning of reasonable, which would generally mean to allow someone to have enough time to respond to it. I am advised that is usually exercised as a reasonable time of about a week in most circumstances.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am in partial agreement with the opposition, that we need to make sure that common sense prevails and that people who are entering private property should give some notice. The question is whether that notice needs to be legislated along the lines of the opposition's amendment or whether there is a case for allowing to see whether common sense prevails. I accept that the provisions that are being removed were possibly unduly restrictive but it is hard to see that the proposed replacement provisions are workable either.

The main thing that strikes me is that the advance notice that has to be given in newspapers and on public radio is two months, and the window of opportunity that the electricity utility has is two weeks. As the minister was saying, if there is wet weather and trucks cannot access, if you miss the window of opportunity, you cannot go back and inspect that proportion of the infrastructure until you have given another two months' notice.

To my way of thinking, that makes no sense. I guess part of the purpose of inspection is to work out whether there is anything that requires attention. It might be possible to guess how long it is going to take to inspect all the infrastructure in a certain area, but I would imagine that it is not as easy as it might seem. You do not know what you are going to come across and, again, there is work that might need to be done as well.

The other aspect of the amendments that I struggle with a little bit is that whilst I accept that the bulk of this infrastructure is on private farming land, some of it will be subject to easements. Those easements, I am guessing, might have other legal obligations or rights associated with them. I am on hazy ground here. I have not seen them, but normally an easement is on a title and it basically says that on this strip of land there is an easement to a power company, and they have a right to access this easement. What I think we would be doing in legislation is potentially undermining a legal right that already exists.

So, my inclination is to not support the Liberal amendment. If it turns out that workers or contractors for power utilities are running amok, if they are rampant through the community, leaving gates open and not telling people they are in the district, and if they behave badly, we can come back and have a look at it. My guess is that that probably will not be the case, and so I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt and hope that common sense prevails. The minister seems convinced that it will so we will not be supporting these amendments.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: In view of the fact that there could be some wriggle room between the houses, I am prepared to support the Liberal amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: While the Dignity Party has a significant amount of sympathy for the intent of the amendment, I think, like other members in this chamber, we have some questions about how it would operate in practice, particularly because the South Australian climate can be quite severe and unpredictable at times, as we have certainly seen recently in fact.

For example, in the next two months, the weather might be really hot and wet on, let's say, the Yorke Peninsula which might result in a higher growth of undergrowth which increases fire risk, but under an amendment such as this, if I am understanding it correctly, unless SAPN had already placed ads on the radio and in the Yorke Peninsula Country Times now, they would not be able to enter to deal with the side effects of that weather until about May. I think it is just not feasible for us to foresee every eventuality that might occur. Our concern is that this may result in less ability for South Australia Power Networks to do its job in those circumstances.

I appreciate that other members want to see some wriggle room (I think was the term used) and see what compromise might be reached, and I am happy to see that, too, but at this point in time our intention is, as I said, while we understand the intent of the amendment, not to support its passage.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the Hon. Mr Brokenshire on behalf of Family First and the Hon. Mr Darley for their indication of willingness to support further consideration of this by supporting its passage through the Legislative Council today. I indicate, on behalf of the member for Stuart, that certainly when this bill goes back to the House of Assembly he will enter into discussions with the government to look to see whether we can find some sort of tweaking of the amendment that will make it more workable or more acceptable to the electricity providers and to the government to see whether or not a compromise can be entered into.

I thank those members for their willingness to at least allow the principle to be further considered by passage today and then for further discussion to occur between the houses.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

Clause thus deleted; new clause inserted.

Clauses 12 to 27 passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Lucas–1]—

Page 18, lines 33 to 35—Delete the clause

I understand the government is supporting this. I will be very brief, for fear I lose them. I am advised that the Gas Act 1997 and the Electricity Act 1996 grant investigative powers to authorised officers to investigate incidents relating to electricity and gas infrastructure and installations. Both acts only allow authorised officers to enter a place when conducting an investigation or examining and testing infrastructure equipment.

This bill grants further powers to authorised officers to stop, inspect and enter vehicles to ensure compliance with the act, and examine and test electrical gas infrastructure and equipment to ensure its safety. This measure in the bill is proposed for both the Gas Act and the Electricity Act. During the committee, the minister advised that the purpose of allowing authorised officers to search vehicles was in response to claims of electricians removing evidence from a site and putting it in their vans after a fire or other incident to prevent prosecution.

There are already procedures in place where a police officer can search vehicles and there was a question as to why authorised officers under these acts should have this authority. If an authorised officer believes it is necessary to search a vehicle, then he or she can ask for a police officer to do so. Therefore, our amendments remove references in the bill that enable vehicles to be searched or inspected by authorised officers. I indicate that I am advised that should this amendment be successful, the remaining 13 amendments are consequential.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the chamber that the government will be accepting this amendment. It does pain me to agree with the Hon. Rob Lucas, but nonetheless we will be doing so. The amendment was inserted primarily to address a serious electrical accident which occurred some years ago in 2009, which involved an electrical contractor knowingly removing faulty wiring from premises and throwing it in his van. This is what I am advised the allegation was.

It appears that the contractor was aware that the investigative powers of an authorised officer under the act did not extend to collecting evidence in relation to a suspected offence under the act from within the contractor's van or vehicle. The contractor refused entry to his vehicle. Subsequent to this refusal, a premises nearby the van caught fire and sustained significant damage, which was suspected arose from the faulty electrical equipment in the van.

Since the time of the above incident there has been no further incident of the same type, so whilst these powers would be useful in the circumstance I have described it is accepted that these situations are relatively rare. I can also advise that I accept that the following amendments are consequential to this amendment, so we will be supporting those.

Clause deleted.

Clause 29.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Lucas–1]—

Page 19, line 4 [clause 29, inserted section 69(1)]—Delete 'or vehicle'

Amendment No 4 [Lucas–1]—

Page 19, line 23 [clause 29, inserted section 69(1)(h)]—Delete 'or vehicle'

Amendment No 5 [Lucas–1]—

Page 19, line 24 [clause 29, inserted section 69(1)(h)]—Delete 'or vehicle'

Amendment No 6 [Lucas–1]—

Page 19, lines 25 and 26 [clause 29, inserted section 69(1)(i)]—Delete paragraph (i)

Amendment No 7 [Lucas–1]—

Page 20, lines 3 to 5 [clause 29, inserted section 69(3)(a)]—Delete 'or person apparently in charge of the vehicle (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 8 [Lucas–1]—

Page 20, line 29 [clause 29, inserted section 69(6)(c)]—Delete 'or vehicle'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 30 to 62 passed.

Clause 63.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Lucas–1]—

Page 37, lines 24 to 26—Delete the clause

Clause deleted.

Clause 64.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Lucas–1]—

Page 37, line 30 [clause 64, inserted section 67(1)]—Delete 'or vehicle'

Amendment No 11 [Lucas–1]—

Page 38, line 8 [clause 64, inserted section 67(1)(h)]—Delete 'or vehicle'

Amendment No 12 [Lucas–1]—

Page 38, line 9 [clause 64, inserted section 67(1)(h)]—Delete 'or vehicle'

Amendment No 13 [Lucas–1]—

Page 38, lines 10 and 11 [clause 64, inserted section 67(1)(i)]—Delete paragraph (i)

Amendment No 14 [Lucas–1]—

Page 38, lines 26 to 28 [clause 64, inserted section 67(3)(a)]—Delete 'or person apparently in charge of the vehicle (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 15 [Lucas–1]—

Page 39, line 9 [clause 64, inserted section 67(6)(c)]—Delete 'or vehicle'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (65 to 78) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.