HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN ENERGY MARKET OPERATOR) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2009. Page 2682.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:02): Today we are addressing a number of bills concerning the national energy market. The bills variously will establish one market operator to cover energy at least on the eastern seaboard of Australia and including South Australia. I guess this is the next step in the development of the national market which has now been going for over 10 years, with continuous refinement.

We have three bills before us, and I will talk for a little while somewhat generically because they are all aimed at producing the same outcome. The bills are: first, the Statutes Amendment (Australian Energy Market Operator) Bill, which amends several statutes; secondly, the National Gas (South Australia) (National Gas Law—Australian Energy Market Operator) Amendment Bill; and, thirdly, the National Electricity (South Australia )(National Electricity Law—Australian Energy Market Operator) Amendment Bill. The two latter bills will amend both the South Australian statutes regarding the national gas and electricity laws.

By way of background, the first legislative step regarding these matters occurred in 1966—as I said, over 10 years ago—when the National Electricity (South Australia) Bill was introduced by the then minister for infrastructure, John Olsen. This was to establish the operation of a national electricity market, the NEM. There have been a number of reforms as we have moved forward, and, as I have indicated, we have now brought both gas and electricity across the eastern seaboard, including South Australia, under one national set of laws—the gas law and the electricity law.

Notwithstanding that we have established national market operation, the laws have been separate for electricity and gas. This was not envisaged at the beginning, but the phase at the moment (I think) recognises the interrelationship between the supply of gas and electricity, notwithstanding that there are considerable differences, particularly regarding the challenges in providing gas and electricity services across both metropolitan and regional areas on the eastern seaboard and in South Australia. But there is interchangeability, obviously, with regard to energy use between gas and electricity—electricity and gas can be substituted for each other quite readily, as well as substituting for other energy sources. This move probably reflects the ease of substitution and the synergies that can be achieved by operating one market for both gas and electricity.

Administratively, there are many good reasons to go down this path. In practice, it does pose some challenges for the market operator as we move forward, and I will come to that as I speak specifically about the latter two bills. The first bill, the energy market operator bill, has one element to it which causes me some concern, that is, that it will see the demise of what we know in South Australia as ESIPC, the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council. That has been an organisation which has served this state very well.

The government will probably, yet again, use the debate on these matters to run the political line that privatising of the old ETSA assets has been bad for South Australia, when they full well know that it has been one of the best things that has happened in this state in many years. Not only has it brought private funding into our energy sector, particularly the electricity sector, but it has also brought with that private funding increased competition and we have seen real costs of electricity in South Australia to both commercial and domestic consumers fall dramatically as a direct result of that privatisation. So, the consumers, both commercial and domestic, are the big winners and, of course, the government of South Australia has won considerably because we were able to retire considerable debt through that process.

One of the things that we did establish at the time, when the Liberal Party was in government back in the mid-1990s, is the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council to keep an overarching eye on electricity supply matters, to collect information and to provide in-depth industry reporting to government so that government could always have the best and most up-to-date information in order to move forward with planning our electricity needs into the future. I am somewhat concerned that we will be handing that role over to a national body and that the South Australian focus of that particular body will be lost.

There are a couple of questions that I have for the minister, because in the legislation there are a couple of matters that do provoke my curiosity. I do not know that they are of any great import, but in the third reading there are several questions that I want to pose with regard to the changes that are proposed to this piece of legislation. I might well leave my comments there and note that it is the other two bills that are on the Notice Paper for discussion this morning which I think are much more important and more relevant and I will reserve my additional comments until we get on to those two bills.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:09): As the shadow minister said, this is the first bill of the three that will be debated today (and I do not think that it will take all that long; it depends on him, but I do not think he is feeling all that verbose at the moment). This relates to the implementation of COAG's 2007 agreement to establish a single industry-funded national energy market operator. This body is to be called the Australian Energy Market Operator and it will deal with both electricity and gas (AEMO, I think, is the acronym; I suppose it is a cousin to NEMMCO).

The decision to establish such a body and reform Australia's electricity industry has evolved over many years. During the time that I have been here (19 years), it has certainly been an issue, and it looks as though we are very much getting it together by doing this. This bill has support across the party and the house.

In 1993, the National Grid Management Council published a paper making several recommendations, which COAG subsequently agreed to in 1994. A couple of years later, along with New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and the ACT, we agreed to apply the recommendations, which called for the implementation of a national electricity grid.

In 2001, following general dissatisfaction with the original governance arrangements for national electricity management, COAG decided that a national energy policy was needed. A ministerial council was then appointed to conduct a review of the direction that energy market reform should take. Two new statutory commissions were established: the Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Energy Regulator. In April 2007, COAG decided to establish a single industry-funded operation. As I have already said, this is one of the three bills that support amendments necessary to instigate that agreement.

This bill largely deals with minor amendments to three acts consistent with having a national market operator. It will amend the Australian Energy Market Commission Act to allow a maximum five-year term of appointment of commission members rather than a set term, and I would welcome that (it is probably a good job for retired MPs later on). It also consists of amendments to both the Electricity Act and the Gas Act to enable the transfer of functions, assets and liabilities from bodies that had previously existed to deal with the national electricity and gas market to the Australian Energy Market Operator. This bill is one of three that will allow for the transition to the Australian Energy Market Operator, to commence operation on 1 July 2009.

I also note at this point that the construction of several wind farms is continuing in the Mid North of the state. I think it is opportune that I mention this here. In fact, as you drive all the way from Snowtown to Crystal Brook these wind farms are very much in your face. They certainly impress on first observation, but those who live near them have mixed emotions about them. They have certainly changed the horizon above these lovely rolling hills, which are predominantly called the Hummocks (or, more specifically, the North and the Central Hummocks).

There is great concern about these red flashing lights at night, which flash in unison—all on, all off—and they are extremely annoying. I have made inquiries of CASA, which regulates aeroplane movements in relation to them, and I am told that there is no real regulation and that, because they are under 1,000 feet, they do not necessarily have to have the flashing lights on them.

I would like this matter sorted out. They are tolerable, but at night they are quite obtrusive and in your face: there are all these lights going on and off together. For those who live near them, it would drive them nuts. When I stand by the back door of our family home when I am back at Crystal Brook (which is not that often) and look to the south, I can see these massive structures, which are about an inch and a half high in your vision, because they are 10 or so kilometres away, but, by gosh, they certainly catch your eye. They are quite peaceful and lovely as they turn around, and you think they are doing a good job without creating any pollution, but these are massive structures and I am concerned about the future—and, of course, on a hot, windless day they do not work. So, we will always need to have a base power generator.

I note that these wind farms are being purchased. I will not say that I am either for or against them, but I would like to have the red light situation looked at. I believe there is a way that they can be designed so that only the aeroplanes can see these lights rather than the people living around them. There is also the question of whether they need to be flashing at all, because I am told that CASA regulations do not require that if they are lower than 1,000 feet above the ground. They have turned out to be a very good money raiser for farmers who have them on their property. They pay a good sum of money per tower.

I commend the three companies that have put money into the various communities. I give them credit for that, and so it is not all negative. I suppose that we will get used to having those wind farms there but, when you look out and see them there churning out the power, you think, 'Wow, there are just so many of them.' I also commend the shadow minister for the work he does on our behalf in relation to this issue, and I join him in supporting all three bills.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (12:15): I want to make a very quick contribution on this bill, because I do not profess to make any sense of the detail of it. I note that the minister on the other side is laughing and gleeful, but I understand the very rudimentary principles involved.

I want to comment on what happens usually here, and I do not necessarily blame this particular minister. As a member of this parliament, I hope that when I am in government I do not get into the habit, which I think has been a habit of not only this Labor government but even previous Liberal governments, where ministers go off to little meetings interstate and decide our future and come back and say, 'We've all agreed. All the ministers in the various states and territories have agreed that we're going to have a national system.'

As a member of this place, I object. My view is that this parliament should be the determiner of its own destiny and that it is not up to ministers of whatever persuasion to simply head off to national meetings with ministers from various other jurisdictions, and for that little select group of people to decide—no doubt with the advice of bureaucrats who have particular views about things—what is going to be the future in each of our states. I think the parliament should perhaps be approached by a minister returning from such a meeting.

I do not object to the idea that we need to adopt a national approach on any number of issues. For instance, in my field, I think we need to look at suppression orders because of the nature of the internet. Our suppression order system is only valid within this state, and papers circulating within this state do not affect papers circulating somewhere else. So, if a matter which has been suppressed here is reported somewhere else, someone can access it over the internet anyway.

The reality is that there are very good arguments on a number of issues why we should progress towards a national scheme. However, that does not mean that I endorse the concept that a minister carries with him the authority of the parliament when going off to discuss those national schemes. It seems to me that the appropriate procedure would be for a minister to go as well-armed as possible to a meeting to discuss the potential for a national scheme and the ministers from the various states and territories could come to some landing on what they think might be appropriate. They could all then undertake to take it back to their parliament and not simply announce to their parliament, 'This is now going to be what we're doing. We've agreed to having this national scheme, and here's how it's going to look.' They could put the proposal to the parliament, and maybe we need to develop some new mechanisms by which that can be achieved.

I know that at least one member opposite has from time to time expressed views similar to mine. I sometimes wonder whether the expression of those views has been part of the reason that, although he is a fantastic talent on that side, his many attributes in that regard have been overlooked and he is yet to be appointed to the front bench. I know that there are quite a number of people probably on both sides of this chamber who agree with my proposition that it is inappropriate for ministers of either persuasion in office to think that they have, by right of their ministerial appointment, the right to bind this or any other parliament.

I realise that my remarks are of a general nature rather than being specifically directed towards this particular piece of legislation. However, the parliament will no doubt get used to the fact that there are certain issues about which I feel strongly enough to put my views on the record every time this happens, just as I do every time the government appoints a board and says that at least one member of the board has to be a female and one member has to be a male. I do not think we will have true equality until we do not even have to think about gender. With those few words, I conclude my remarks.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (12:19): I support these bills with reluctance. I do not trust Labor governments in states more populous than ours to act in the best interests of South Australians. Look at how South Australia is being treated by the Eastern States with regard to access to water from the River Murray.

When South Australia owned South Australia's power company, the old ETSA, it was drained of its income by the then Labor government, just as money is being taken from SA Water now and the river is being drained of its water by the Eastern States. The ETSA money was used to prop up state finances, which were spiralling into the massive debt that became known as the State Bank fiasco. State-owned power assets were run down and there was no money left in the coffers to rebuild either them or the state when the Liberal government was put into power in 1993 to clean up that Labor government's financial mess.

The private companies that leased the power enterprises rebuilt our power supplies and infrastructure and embraced change, putting South Australia ahead of New South Wales and Queensland, which still own and manage their own state's power companies. However, a national power system could have implications that we may not yet perceive, possibly coming from government-owned power monopolies and the unions in these more populous Eastern States, and that could severely constrain our state's progress.

I am concerned that the need for a regulated line to provide power to the west of South Australia—particularly to the mining industry and for desalination—using renewable power from wind, solar, waves, graphite blocks and hot rocks, will be pushed aside by this Eastern States power bloc. Instead, it will favour a line to connect South Australian mines, particularly BHP's Olympic Dam, to their dirty coal-fired power. The Eastern States will get the jobs and the royalties in those states, and our green energy suppliers and our mines will not get the power or the lines that they need to provide the jobs and royalties for South Australia. They have greater political clout with the Canberra Labor government, as well as strong unions and state Labor governments—particularly those that own their power assets.

It is now acknowledged that 80 per cent of the state's mining exploration is within the Gawler Craton, which underlines Eyre Peninsula. Western Australia and Queensland each have royalties of more than $3 billion, yet I believe ours stands at about a measly $165 million. However, our Labor state government will not have the anticipated mining boom until power, water and transport infrastructure is in place. Fortunately, countries wanting our minerals have the money and are willing to help put in place that necessary infrastructure.

Only yesterday the Premier announced his commitment to renewable energy generation. He recognises that renewable energy is a global growth industry—and South Australia is in the enviable position of being able to supply this—but for any of it to actually happen we need the infrastructure in place to get our green energy into the national grid. The whole region of Eyre Peninsula is constrained by ElectraNet's more than 40 year old, 132 kilovolt line from Whyalla to Port Lincoln, with a spur to Wudinna.

I ask the government to apply whatever pressure it can to ensure that a regulated line is constructed along the west coast of Eyre Peninsula from Wudinna to Elliston and down to Port Lincoln. Triangulating the power lines would give security of power for the southern Eyre Peninsula and enable inputs and offtakes of power from the 1,000 megawatts-plus of wind energy being planned at Elliston and the desalination plants and mining activities en route.

The southern triangulation of powerlines is in addition to the ring main that is needed in the north and west to provide stability of power supply and the intakes and offtakes there. I note with interest that in July 2008 a 168 kilometre electrical power line to Oz Minerals' Prominent Hill copper and gold mine from Olympic Dam was provided by private enterprise. This would form one link in the ring main.

The Lake Phillipson coal mine, about 100 kilometres away from Prominent Hill, will provide another link in the line through to the Challenger gold mine, the Warrior uranium mine and possibly west to Iluka's jacinth ambrosia mineral sands, Fowlers Bay and Lake McDonald gypsum mines to Ceduna. I hope this line will grow over the next few years as mines come into production in the north and west to link in via Ceduna to Wudinna. This must be taken into account.

Reliability and security of supply can be provided for South Australia by renewable energy. The newly announced RenewablesSA Board must take action to ensure that infrastructure is built to deliver the green energy that will not only meet green energy targets but also ensure that South Australia is in the best possible position to benefit. We have companies ready to go. In addition to the existing 70 megawatt Mount Miller and 65 megawatt Cathedral Rocks wind farms, approximately 1,000 megawatts of capacity is being planned by Ausker Energies and Origin Energy near Elliston, which is rated as one of the top sites for wind energy in the world.

Also, Wave Ride Energy has been given approval for its pilot wave energy plant at Elliston, 800 metres offshore and 30 metres deep using the power of the Southern Ocean. These projects are expected to begin early in the 2010-15 regulatory period and need to be taken into consideration as the area is currently serviced by only 11 kilovolt lines.

BHP and other developments in the region will be able to take advantage of the green energy. Customer service and communities must be looked after, particularly at Elliston, Lock, Tumby Bay, Cummins, Port Neill, Cowell, Kimba, Cleve, Wudinna, Streaky Bay, Fowlers Bay, Ceduna and Port Lincoln which will all have significant increases in population stimulated by mining in their vicinity.

Power must be provided to support growth in the west of South Australia for the benefit of all South Australians. In addition to Iluka's mineral sands mine, the potential processing plant west of Ceduna Minotaur's kaolin mine and processing south of Streaky Bay and the many other uranium, lead, zinc, copper, gold and iron ore companies, there is now a proposed export port near Port Neill. Future value adding requires an iron ore pellet plant to be established that is expected to become a reality within the regulatory period.

The port and pellet plant will need significant power for loading, unloading and processing of iron ore, as well as having a significant multiplier effect with all the support services needed such as cement works and additional housing for staff. An estimated requirement of 350 megawatts has been provided to me by the proponents. I also mention that the small township of Fowlers Bay should be considered for significant expansion as a possible service town. I ask that it be factored into any expected expansion of power requirements in South Australia.

In the last month, the government and SA Water have at last recognised the need for desalination plants on Eyre Peninsula as the southern basins are seriously overdrawn. The processing of kaolin alone requires about 3 gigalitres of water, and port and pellet plants have not yet been factored in by the government. SA Water, despite being the government owned monopoly provider of water and in control of the pipeline network, does not consider providing water for mining is its problem and is leaving it to the companies themselves to source.

Therefore, I reiterate the need for desalination plants at least to double the nine gigalitres currently obtained in the most part from overdrawn underground basins south of Port Lincoln. However, the required desalination plants will be significant users of power and this will need to be factored into the requirements of the next regulatory period as work is expected to start this financial year.

The expansion of the state's power must not be curtailed by interests interstate. I would like the Premier's and his minister's reassurance that the interests of South Australia will be enhanced by the changes proposed by these acts that have suddenly been imposed on us and not depleted by issues that may not as yet have become apparent because of lack of adequate consideration.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (12:28): For the benefit particularly of the last speaker, as kindly as I can, I want to say that she profoundly misunderstands the nature of regulation of transmission in Australia. In regard to this, it has supposedly been imposed by some Labor governments and its unions, but I can tell you I was there and I have seen the origin of this—it came from John Howard and Ian McFarlane's pursuing of this national reform, and it is continued by the new Labor federal government.

I make it clear that the expectation from both those federal governments is that we would agree to this, and they are persuasive. It really would pay for people to inform themselves, even in a rudimentary sense, of the background to the regulation of transmission and distribution in Australia. The notion that South Australia has been punished by a Labor government and its union mates in the Eastern States by not getting the electricity that the member for Flinders wants is just nonsense.

The national transmission decisions prior to this one were made by the transmission company making an application for reset to the ACCC. The ACCC's decisions were made according to a set of laws that have been adopted by every parliament in Australia. The recent move to the AER means the reset will be adopted by the AER but I, for one, would posit that the AER really looks like the ACCC with a different name, if you ask me. Be that as it may, the notion that somehow there is a political decision being made by Labor and its union mates on transmission is just a palpable, patent nonsense. It is not even a debatable point; it is just a complete and utter nonsense.

Mrs Penfold interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The other point is that there is something wrong with making the private sector pay for its own transmission lines. It is not only not wrong—I mean, you just love conservatives: they love the marketplace but, boy, they love a little bit of socialism when it suits them. I might also point out that I think we might get into trouble with World Trade Organisation agreements were we to provide public infrastructure to a major exporter. I think there are issues about that.

I do not think we should waste a great deal of the parliament's time on what has just been said. What we have in front of us—and I will turn to that, because it might be a more productive use of the parliament's time—is the result of a long process commenced under the previous federal government which believed that there should be a move to a single national regulator and then, subsequently, a move to the convergence of the gas and energy markets.

The resultant body that parliament has in front of it is different from the previous body that dealt only with electricity, in the sense that it has industry representatives on it now. It is still a company limited by guarantee, and it will still have to apply the laws made by various parliaments around Australia. I, for one, was engaged in the debate. These things happen, as has been pointed out, through an endless series of meetings between ministers in every state. They have changed in political allegiance over the period of this reform, but I can say that I took a long time to be persuaded that industry should be represented on the marketing company.

At the end of the day, these things are done by agreement. I accept the criticisms of the member for Heysen that these things do appear to be imposed. What I can say is that there is not any other way to do national reform in our federal system except like this. I guess the safeguard is that it is much easier to prevent something happening than it is to get it to happen, and that is why it takes so long.

I guarantee that I have been involved in this reform process since 2002. People can have their debate about the nature of the federal system and what should occur, but I have no doubt that there are occasions, such as in my other portfolio areas like transport, where we simply do need to get better national uniformity and better national regulation. This has been, as I said, a pursuit of a previous Liberal federal government and the current Labor government.

As to the only other point that I think was made, I can tell the member for Schubert that I do not believe the requirement for lights on the top of wind towers has anything to do with any aspect of our regulatory approach to electricity. I suspect that they are imposed either by civil aviation or by the planning system. I will certainly pass on those views to the planning minister in case it has anything to do with our planning regulations, but I suspect that it is a regulation imposed by CASA. It seems odd to me, but we can pass on those views.

To the member for Flinders, who wants some assurance that this is better, all I can say is that these are the studied views of a number of ministers from a number of political backgrounds. It does represent a compromise and is considered by a large number of people—not just me—to be the best way forward for managing Australia's electricity and gas markets.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr WILLIAMS: This is probably of no great import, but it certainly provoked my curiosity when I read that clause 8 seeks to amend section 36 so that we can now appoint an acting chairperson or panel member for a period of eight months rather than six months. It just seems strange to me that we would want to make that change. Obviously, something has occurred that has made this necessary, and I think the committee would be interested to know what that was.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Frankly, I cannot recall why that was. We will have to undertake to bring you back an answer as soon as we can. I am sure that it is some minor administrative reason about timing, but I cannot recall and neither can my learned advisers. I undertake to bring an answer back, but I am sure it is for some completely innocent administrative purpose and not for any other reason.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I'm sure I will have. Sorry about that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mr WILLIAMS: This clause actually dissolves the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council, which I mentioned briefly in my second reading contribution. It is the one area about which I and my colleagues on this side of the house do have some concerns. The ESIPC was established, I think, when we first moved way back in 1996, as I said in my second reading contribution, specifically to bring the best possible information to the industry and to the government in particular on the future needs regarding electricity supply in South Australia. The concern that the opposition has is that this function will now be handed to a federal body.

We need some reassurance from the minister about how South Australia's interests will be protected and what sort of support a federal body will give to South Australia. The member for Flinders made the point, which I think was well made, about how South Australia's interests are not necessarily served in national bodies, and she cited the River Murray as an example. When we come up against the other states, it can be quite difficult for South Australia's voice to be heard. We have unique circumstances in South Australia.

Later, in debate on one of the other bills, I will talk about a transmission line problem we have in South Australia. However, we have some unique challenges here, and I am concerned about protecting our local interests. In answering this question, the minister might take the opportunity to answer a further question. I note that there will be a local office of the Australian Energy Market Operator in South Australia, I presume specifically to address these sorts of matters. What sort of protection will be have as we go forward that that office will remain in South Australia, and how will it protect our interests?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think that the shadow spokesperson indicated that he may well know what the approach will be. The functions of the ESIPC in terms of its advisory role will be transferred to the new market company. There will be an office here, and all the personnel will transfer over. One of the things I give credit to the previous Liberal government for is the ESIPC, which I think was established by John Olsen. It is a good organisation, and it is the best model in Australia, and we urged upon the national body that the advisory functions of the market company in that respect would be best if they were modelled on the ESIPC.

I think that a lot of what we have sought has been carried into the legislation. So, you will have the functions created and the same advice to be given, with the exception that the local jurisdictional system security will go to the Office of the Technical Regulator here. That will remain in the South Australian jurisdiction, and the advisory body, which will remain the same people, will go over there. What protection do we have about keeping it here? Obviously, where offices are and who is in them are not in the laws, but I make two points. I think that it is extremely unlikely that you could provide this level of advice without a level of local knowledge, and that is why we believe it would continue.

No-one can give guarantees in the future, and the best example of that is when John Olsen decided to get us into the national energy market in the first place. One of the things he bargained for was that the National Electricity Code Administrator would be based in Adelaide. Of course, in the process of reform, when NECA's functions were subsumed somewhere else, it disappeared out of South Australia and we got a small branch of something else.

So, there are no protections, but my view is that the important thing is that South Australia's interests are protected and that the advice is given correctly. The current body has a number of industry representatives on its council and, by their very nature, those industry representatives will still need to be drawn from South Australia. I imagine that it would probably be cheaper to have that body meet in South Australia than fly them all interstate. So, it would make good sense. I think the fact that we are preserving a lot of what we do in this has been a sensible outcome under the act. Can I give an ironclad guarantee that it will not change. If you asked John Olsen back then whether NECA would stay in South Australia forever he would have been sensible enough to say that he could not give that guarantee—and neither can I now.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will make a speech I make often about giving power to make regulations. The minister may remind the committee, but one of the problems with national legislation—and it goes to comments that were made by the member for Heysen and referred to by the minister in his summing up on the second reading debate—is that it takes away the powers of our parliament to influence it.

The minister may remind the house about the circumstances in relation to regulations. Under most statutes of this state, regulations are a disallowable instrument. The minister of the day, who is responsible for a statute, is obliged to lay a regulation before both houses, and the parliament has reserved the right to disallow such regulations by a simple majority vote in either house. I think I am correct in saying that under this legislation it is not a disallowable instrument. In fact—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: They are.

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, minister, you can put that on the record and explain how it works. I am pleased to hear that, because not long ago we passed legislation to hand over powers to the commonwealth in relation to water, if my memory serves me correctly, under which legislation regulation-making powers took away the right of this parliament to disallow such regulations. I would be pleased to hear from the minister about what powers are retained by the parliament of South Australia in relation to regulations.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: This is an amendment to an existing South Australian act—the Electricity Act 1996. Under the Electricity Act 1996 all regulations are made as an ordinary South Australian piece of subordinate legislation. It amends only the South Australian act. There is a different one later, on which you may want to make that point.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (24 to 32), schedule and title passed.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT