HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIONAL ENERGY RETAIL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 October 2010.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:26): I will not hold the house very long. We have two bills the government has brought on: the National Energy Retail Law (South Australia) Bill and the Statutes Amendment (National Energy Retail Law) Bill, which I think will follow this very soon. These two bills were introduced into the house by the minister in the last sitting week, about a week and a half ago. Certainly, the one we are debating at the moment is a very large and technical bill; it has some 320 clauses, and the second reading explanation runs to 31 pages.

I received a briefing from the agency last week, and at the briefing I pointed out, certainly to the minister's chief of staff (and I have made these comments before with regard to these national energy laws), that I would have thought it would be an abuse of the parliamentary process to bring this matter on urgently, particularly given that the briefing made it quite clear that there is no rush to get this legislation through the parliament.

In fact, I have started to consult with some of the stakeholders, and the Energy Retailers Association has written back to me in a letter I received today, I think, and it is calling for this legislation not to come into effect any earlier than 1 July 2012, which is some considerable time hence. I do not think the officers who briefed me last week envisaged that it would be quite that long but they certainly envisaged that it will be quite a while before any of the jurisdictions were to be working under this legislation.

The discussion I had with the minister's chief of staff under those circumstances was that I would be quite happy and prepared to debate the bill in the next sitting week, which is in a fortnight's time, and I thought that was what was going to happen. Late last week I got a call from our whip's office saying that the government wanted to bring on this bill. My response was to go back to the government and say I thought it was not going to come on until the following week. It was then put to me that the government was happy to debate it in a couple of weeks' time on the condition that we would put it through both houses at that time.

I was unable to speak for the other place, Madam Speaker. The bill is not urgent and is a very significant piece of legislation. I am in the habit of understanding legislation that I am responsible for on behalf of this side of the house before I let it proceed through the house. I was more than happy to debate it in a fortnight's time: the government is insistent that it be debated today. So, as a consequence, I am not in the position of being able to debate the bill. The government will get its way—it has the numbers. It will, as I say, abuse the parliamentary process and push this through. What I can tell the minister is that he will get no cooperation from the opposition on this piece of legislation in the other place, and he will be waiting, I suggest—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I am just telling the minister, Madam Speaker, that he will get no cooperation from the opposition in the other place, and I suspect the legislation might have a very slow passage through the other place.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: What a champion you are.

Mr WILLIAMS: I do not control the other place, minister, but—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, the minister is starting to get grumpy. This legislation has come out of the Ministerial Council on Energy and this is the minister who trots off, representing this state at the ministerial council, who would have us believe that he is doing important things. In fact, way back in 2008 he said that he was championing the cause to have rules made to underpin the development of wind energy in South Australia and the Premier put out a press release a couple of months ago making the same comments about needing a rule change.

The reality is that the minister, when he was supposedly championing our position at the ministerial council, traipsed off to Melbourne, went to the dinner before the council meeting and spent the next day, when he should have been at the council championing our cause, in his hotel room. The minister is very tardy at championing our cause at the ministerial council but comes in here and abuses the parliamentary process by landing this sort of legislation on the table and demanding that it be passed in a bit over a week after it has been tabled.

I contend that it is almost impossible—in fact, I contend that it is impossible—for any member to get an understanding of legislation of this nature and this volume in the time that the minister has given the parliament to get its head around this. As I have said, I have written to a number of stakeholders. I have had a couple of responses. I refer to the letter I have from the Energy Retailers Association of Australia. I have had a response from at least one retailer, and my office is still awaiting responses from other interested parties.

That is one of the things that the opposition does. We take our role here as legislators quite seriously. I have to inform the house that the opposition is not in a position to debate this piece of legislation, but we can count; we know the minister will take advantage of the fact that he has the numbers. He will put this through this place, but I need to inform the minister that he will get no cooperation from this side of the parliament in the other place.

I am not suggesting that I will be doing anything deliberately to delay it. All I am suggesting is that the minister will get no cooperation. I will go through the process of making sure that I have a full understanding of this piece of legislation and I will take recommendations on it to my party room and, in due course, we will debate it, and it will be debated fully in the other place. I will conclude my comments there.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will just clear up a couple of things. I note that the only contribution that the opposition spokesperson on energy (who takes extra money as the deputy leader) has been able to make is a personal attack on me. He cannot debate the bill because, in a week and a half, he cannot get his head around it. Very good; we cannot expect too much from the member for MacKillop. But before he goes off on his stories about abuse of parliament, I make this first point. The bill has sat on the table for the length of time that a bill in this parliament is expected to sit on the table and has been expected to sit on the table, certainly for as long as I have been here—and that is since 1997. That is the thing.

I point out to the member for MacKillop this: his fundamental problem in not getting his head around this bill is because he does not put any energy into his responsibilities. I point out that this bill follows substantial consultation on two exposure drafts of the law and rules. Of course, some shadow spokespersons might have sought to inform themselves during that very lengthy consultation process, which involved more than six discrete, formal consultation processes, written submissions from stakeholders and public fora.

It is not the duty of the government to do the member for MacKillop's job for him. When he puts up his hand to be a shadow spokesperson, it is assumed that he will take some—perhaps fleeting, ephemeral—interest in the subject matter for which he purports to be the spokesperson. The truth is that the consultation process on these laws has been exhaustive: two exposure drafts. They were not kept secret. They were available to any shadow spokesperson with an ounce of gumption.

Perhaps we did not circulate them in Darwin, if we want to make personal attacks. Perhaps there was not one on that famous balcony in Darwin when he had his feet up while Penola was blowing down. Perhaps we did not get one up to Darwin for him. Whom did he consult? The retailers' association. And what have they said? They do not want consumer protection until 2012, please. He is going to make sure that that is what occurs. Here we have a lazy, Liberal spokesperson who will not inform himself on his portfolio, blaming the government for his shortcomings and acting with his friends in the Legislative Council to stop consumer protections.

So, why was this brought here at this time? I have to say that I have known the member for MacKillop in the past and I knew he would not make an effort. I would have been pleased to give him more time except for two circumstances: one is that I have been asked by the MCE and, very recently, the federal minister, if we could seek to get this through. I said that was reasonable and that we had laid it on the table for the length of time required under the ordinary procedures of this parliament.

I am sorry that I have sought to do that, but it is what my colleagues had asked, and I do think—if the member ever turns his mind to the substance of it, rather than wanting to attack me—that it is important that we move towards these consumer protections. We will not suffer in South Australia because we have very good consumer protections, and we would like everyone to enjoy those.

As to the member's defence about the need for consultation is that the retailers do not want consumer protections, I advise the member for MacKillop that they would like never to have them at all, but if they have to have them they are going to have them as slowly as possible and with the great support of the Liberal opposition, and his friends in the upper house are going to make sure that all of those people around Australia, all of the other ministers who have been working to give good consumer protections to people, will be thwarted in that endeavour basically because his view is that it is the duty of the government to spoonfeed opposition spokespeople in their areas of responsibility.

It remains my position that it is my job to get across my responsibility, and it is the member for MacKillop's job to get across his area of responsibility. Goodness me, public fora: six discrete formal consultations, two exposure drafts. How much information did he want? He was not interested, let's face it. The member for MacKillop does not point out that the federal minister was not at that meeting either and that it was all formalised the night before. That is an unnecessary detail. He is not one for detail. What was that slogan of the Dodgy Brothers? 'Details are for losers.' That is the member for MacKillop.

This is a very important set of protections. I accept that the member is going to use his friends in the upper house to protect the retailers—so be it. He wants to protect the retailers; I want to protect the customers. I place on the record the stark contrast between the approach of the Labor government and the opposition: the member wants to protect the retailers; we want to protect the electricity customers. So be it: you make your choice. I point out that all I asked of the member for MacKillop was that I would be happy to give him more time if he would make some effort to assist us with his friends in the other place, and he said that that was beyond his power. Is it not peculiar that it is beyond the member's power to help, but he can certainly frustrate, with his friends in the other place?

I do not think that I need to say much more about the contribution of the member for MacKillop, except to point out that I will continue to pursue the protection of electricity customers, while his indolence protects the people who sell electricity to the customers.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

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