Statutes Amendment (Electricity and Gas) Bill

Final Stages

The House of Assembly agreed to amendments Nos 2 to 15 made by the Legislative Council without any amendment; disagreed to amendment No. 1; and made an alternative amendment as indicated in the following schedule in lieu thereof:

No. 1.Clause 11, 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) —

(i) the electricity entity gives reasonable written notice of the date and time of the proposed entry to the occupier of the land; or

(ii) if it is not reasonably practicable for the electricity entity to give notice in accordance with subparagraph (i), the electricity entity—

(A) publishes, at least 1 month before the proposed inspection of infrastructure in the area of the council, a prescribed notice in a newspaper circulating within that area; and

(B) conducts the inspection 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 1 month) during which the entity proposes to inspect its infrastructure in the area.

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

That the disagreement to amendment No. 1 not be insisted on and that the alternative amendment be agreed to.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise to speak to this particular motion, because the amendment I moved on behalf of the Liberal Party was the subject of the disputation between the houses. This essentially related to the issue of advising landowners of notice of when SA Power Networks officers or electricity officers were seeking entry to land.

I have been advised by the member for Stuart, who has carriage of this particular issue, that since the passage of the amendment in our house, he and others have been involved in discussions with SA Power Networks and the state government representatives in relation to seeking a suitable alternative compromise that everyone could accept as being more practical and workable. The member for Stuart has advised me that this afternoon he, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, agreed with the government representatives in another place on this alternative amendment that is now before us.

As described to me, because I am not the expert in this area, we in this chamber had some quite onerous requirements in terms of notice, which included two newspapers, two months' notice, but also public radio broadcast services broadcasting in the area. I have been advised subsequently by the member for Stuart that evidently the most significant public broadcaster—i.e. the ABC—was, and I do not want to overstate this, perhaps unwilling, I think was the word that was used to me, to be involved in this particular amendment. Perhaps that is the best way I can put it.

I am not sure if that is exactly accurate, but in essence, as a result of discussions with them, they are no longer part of this particular alternative amendment. The amendment now is essentially for one newspaper—a prescribed notice in the newspaper circulating within that area—rather than two newspapers. It is one month's notice rather than two months'.

I am also advised that, cleverly incorporated into this amendment that has now been agreed, there is a provision for the future, where SA Power Networks is hoping to have a series of email addresses and text capacity available to provide advice to landowners via text or email. They are not currently able to do that with all landowners, but they are evidently preparing themselves for future circumstances in which they are going to be able to advise people by text and by email, as opposed to newspaper advertisements and the like. They are not currently in that position, but I am told this amendment does provide the capacity, when they have that capacity, to be able to use that as the mechanism for advising landowners of electricity officers wanting to enter.

With that brief description, as has been outlined to me from the Liberal Party's viewpoint, we have supported it in the other house—so the member for Stuart has indicated—and the government has supported it. I say to the crossbenchers who are here that there is agreement between the government and the opposition. It was our amendment originally, but we nevertheless await the views of the Independents and minor parties as well, although, in the end, if the government and the opposition are supporting it, so be it.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Whilst we are normally loath to deal with complex matters on the run with no notice, during the period that the Hon. Rob Lucas has been talking I have managed to read the original amendment and the House of Assembly's alternative amendment. Whilst I accept that the numbers are now secured, if the government and opposition have both negotiated them, I want to put a couple of things on the record.

I think the original Liberal amendment that we sent down to the other place was onerous. I remember having concerns at the time about the radio broadcasts. For example, one of my favourite radio stations, which, on an old-fashioned transistor, is not heard much outside Goolwa or Victor Harbor—I am talking, of course, about Happy FM, a station that I have been known to appear on from time to time. It is streamed on the internet, as are many stations. There are definitional issues about whether Happy FM, based in Goolwa, is available right through the state of South Australia, but in fact it is available across the world. So, I think it does make sense to have removed the radio provision.

I note also that the period of notice that needs to be given has been reduced. I think it was two months originally and I think it is down to one month now. I also, whilst it is not part of this amendment, accept what the Hon. Robert Lucas says, that if they are now looking at more direct forms of notification, such as text messaging services, that is a good thing. If the object of this exercise was to make sure that inconvenience was reduced by not having people enter property at inconvenient times or when sheep are lambing or whatever is going on, it does make sense that people should be able to be notified, and if there are new ways of notifying people, that makes sense as well.

Despite the fact that the numbers are assured, I just want to say that, on a quick reading of it, it looks as if the replacement amendments cause less inconvenience than the government's original amendments. If the government is prepared to live with this model and if SA Power Networks has been consulted and they are happy to live with it, then the Greens are happy to live with it as well.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: The specifics of this matter have been very well covered, particularly by the Hon. Robert Lucas. I just want to put on the record my concern, as the Hon. Mr Parnell put in his comments, that this has occurred without any notice. It was not brought up to the Whips at any stage today for us to consider. I have great concern that we are being told that this has all happened in the processes of the place below us and we need to suddenly get everyone down here and we have to do it.

I will take the advice of my colleague the Hon. Mr Lucas, who assures me that it is fine. This sort of stuff that we do on the run after the other place has gone home on Thursday afternoon—I am not sure why this could not have waited until Tuesday 20 June.

Motion carried.