HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Energy Consumers Australia) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2014.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:42): I advise the house that I will not be the lead speaker on this bill. Today I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Energy Consumers Australia) Bill. It seeks to amend the Australian Energy Market Commission Establishment Act 2004, the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 and the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008. I note that this bill was introduced by the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy on 15 October 2014 and the intent of the bill is to establish a national energy advocacy body, Energy Consumers Australia or ECA.

I note that SACOSS is supportive of the establishment of Energy Consumers Australia and, in terms of the cost to consumers, it believes that it is good value for money, and the savings to consumers achieved from the establishment of Energy Consumers Australia are likely to outstrip the cost so that would certainly be a good thing if that is what prevails into the future.

SACOSS did advise that it is important that the reference committee which advises the board as part of this proposal includes representatives from groups such as SACOSS to ensure that the interests of the most vulnerable people in our electorates are fairly represented. What we understand is that the Small Business Commissioner is broadly supportive of the proposal to establish the ECA and note that he would like to see representation from the small business sector on the board.

I note that, in relation to the definition of 'small business' in the bill, it is the same as described in the national energy retail law and the associated regulations. A small business customer has the same meaning as a small customer. There are upper consumption thresholds for determining whether business customers are small or large customers. A business is considered a large customer if it consumes more than 100 megawatt hours per annum and below this threshold it is considered to be a small customer. By way of comparison, the average annual South Australian household electricity consumption is approximately 6.4 megawatt hours for metropolitan customers and just over 7 megawatt hours per household for rural and remote customers.

In relation to any costs that will come about if this bill becomes an act, the same cost will apply to both residential customers and small businesses and it is expected to be approximately 64¢ per year based on the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) methodology for collection of the fee.

I note that in regard to this legislation the whole Council of Australian Government Energy Council agreed to establish Energy Consumers Australia as an important pathway and step towards increasing consumer advocacy on national energy market matters of strategic importance or material consequence for energy consumers. The establishment of Energy Consumers Australia will be as a company limited by guarantee. A constitution will instigate that it will be governed by a single member and the South Australian minister responsible for energy and a skill-based board comprising of four directors and one chair.

The objective is to promote the long-term interests of consumers in regard to energy with respect to price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of energy services by providing and enabling strong, coordinated, collegiate, evidence-based consumer advocacy on national energy market matters of strategic importance or material consequence for energy consumers. This is certainly mainly in regard to small business customers and residential customers. This is to make sure that in representation in national energy matters all energy consumers will be represented, and that is why the ECA is being established.

Given that, in the main, most customers are not always able to be represented on a sufficiently well-informed analytical basis to influence national energy policy developments or outcomes of regulatory determinations that have a large bearing on consumers' energy prices, part of what will happen if this bill becomes law and Energy Consumers Australia is set up, is engaging with consumers and existing consumer advocacy groups in regard to identification and resolution of national energy issues, and this will increase the overall effectiveness of building national and jurisdictional expertise and capacity through the management and funding of research and representation activities in creating new avenues for consumers to be able to express their opinions, so that any issues that concern them regarding costs or delivery of energy can be expressed.

The name of the bill is the Statutes Amendment (Energy Consumers Australia) Bill 2014 and it makes amendments to several bills including the national electricity law and the schedule in the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996, the national gas law and the schedule in the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008, and the Australian Energy Market Commission Establishment Act 2004. In this legislation, there is currently a body that advocates for consumers, the Consumer Advocacy Panel, and that existing body will be abolished if this bill comes into law.

The Australian Energy Market Operator will provide the funding for Energy Consumers Australia. In regard to rules in relation to Energy Consumers Australia, it is noted that the South Australian minister will be responsible for making initial rules, and they will include provisions for its funding and other consequential matters. I have not seen this, and it may be in other legislation, but it is interesting to note that after the initial rules are made the minister will have no further power to make any more rules.

The bill will provide the Australian Energy Market Operator with the ability to consider the appropriate methodology for recovering future consumer advocacy funding. There will be sufficient flexibility for the Australian Energy Market Operator to prepare a transitional schedule indicating how the funding is to be recovered from the electricity market customers until the end of the current participant fee determination period.

As I said, the South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) is generally in favour of what is happening under this bill to ensure advocacy for all electricity and gas consumers and to make sure that the most vulnerable in our community can get representation. I note that as at the end of June 2014 the South Australian small customer electricity market served around 845,000 individual connections. That generates $1,400 million in retail sales from 5.2 terawatt hours of electricity, and it works out to approximately 40 per cent of state demand. This goes against the large-customer market, where around 7,000 customers provide around $1,000 million in revenue from 7.6 terawatt hours of electricity, which equates to around 60 per cent of state demand.

Mr Treloar: You know your numbers.

Mr PEDERICK: It's great when you've got good notes. Of the small customer group, around 90 per cent are residential, providing revenue of around $1,100 million per annum from four terawatt hours (4,000 gigawatt hours, or 30 per cent of state demand) of electricity. Around 10 per cent of small business provides revenue of around $330 million per annum from around 1.3 terawatt hours of electricity, or approximately 10 per cent of state demand.

As I said earlier in my initial comments about this bill, it does seem to be a reasonable administrative bill, but I will be interested to hear other contributions in this house. I believe the shadow minister may have some questioning in committee? No, he does not think so. I would think that this bill will have a fairly straightforward progress through this house.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:54): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Energy Consumers Australia) Bill. On 15 October 2014, the Minister for Mineral Resources introduced a bill to amend national energy legislation to enable the establishment of a national energy advocacy body known as Energy Consumers Australia (ECA).

A national energy consumer advocacy group was first proposed in November 2012 as part of the Standing Council on Energy and Resources energy market reform package. In January 2013, that standing council appointed Dr John Tamblyn and Mr John Ryan as expert advisers in energy regulation and policy to look to establish an effective model for this body.

As it progressed, on 30 April 2013 the final report detailing the body's objectives, principles and functions was presented to the Standing Council on Energy and Resources. The state government have agreed to implement this body in accordance with the recommendations. The objective of the ECA will be:

To promote the interests of all Australian energy consumers over the long term, with respect to their access to the supply of efficiently priced, reliable and safe energy services, by presenting a strong, coordinated consumer advocacy voice on national energy market matters of strategic importance and material consequence for all energy consumers, in particular for residential and small business customers.

That was one sentence quoted from that report. The need for a national energy advocacy group came from concerns that the large majority of energy consumers, both residential and small business, actually have minimal representation under the current arrangements on national energy matters.

Analysis has found that large business energy consumers and consumers on low incomes and in hardship are relatively well represented under the current arrangements—both those two groups at either end. Large businesses tend to have the financial resources and knowledge base to represent their own interests on energy market matters, and grants to local advocacy groups fund representation for consumers on low incomes and in hardship.

There is obviously a large body of people and consumers in the middle. A national energy advocacy body that solely represented residential and small business consumers was considered, but it was decided that an advocacy body that represented large, medium and small businesses gave the added benefit of providing a holistic consumer view but should have the focus on the interests of residential and small business consumers.

The bill abolishes the Consumer Advocacy Panel—a body that has facilitated consumer advocacy in the past through a series of grants to local and regional advocacy groups. Our advice is that these grants will continue but transitioned into the ECA and will not be reduced during this process. Good examples of local and regional advocacy groups are the South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS), which is obviously well known and which I will refer to again in a moment, and St Vincent de Paul, sometimes known colloquially as Vinnies.

The scope of the work by the ECA includes potential implications for energy consumers associated with the various national energy legislation, any proposals for reform or change to the market arrangements under that legal framework, and matters arising from the operation of the energy markets across the supply chain. It is proposed that the ECA be structured as a company limited by guarantee, governed by a constitution with a single member—the SA minister responsible for energy—and a skill-based board advised by a reference committee drawn up from a broad cross-section of consumer advocacy bodies.

The total budget for the ECA would be around $6.2 million, which would comprise salaries and on-costs of $2.2 million, capacity building and project grants of around $2.5 million and other costs of $1.5 million. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) would collect an industry levy from retailers which would then be passed on to consumers at a rate of less than 65¢ per residential customer per week.

SACOSS, which I referred to earlier, is supportive of the establishment of the ECA. In terms of the cost to the consumers, it believes that it is good value for money, and the savings to consumers achieved from the establishment of an ECA are likely to outstrip the costs.

SACOSS advises that it is important that the reference committee which advises the board is part of this proposal and includes representatives from groups such as SACOSS to ensure the interests of vulnerable people are fairly represented. Our advice also is that the Small Business Commissioner is broadly supportive of the proposal to establish the ECA. Understandably, he would like to see representation from the small business sector on the board.

Of course, there are a few definitions that need elaborating. One that is often referred to in the briefing papers is 'small business'. A small business customer has the same meaning as a small business. There are upper consumption thresholds for determining whether business customers are small or large customers. A business is considered a large customer if it consumes more than 100 megawatt hours per annum. Below this threshold is considered a small customer. By way of comparison, the average annual South Australian household electricity consumption is approximately 6.4 megawatts per hour for metro and just over seven megawatts per hour for rural and remote.

Interestingly, my second son has taken a flat in recent weeks. He is working at the Viterra site at Kimba. He has a flat in Kimba for 85 bucks a week, plus power. At 19 he has signed his first energy agreement, and he asked me what we were paying for power. I think he said he is paying 32¢ a kilowatt; so there you go—fair and reasonable.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: I bet he enjoys it.

Mr TRELOAR: I bet he enjoys it. He is not using a lot of power, member for Stuart.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: The lights are off a lot.

Mr TRELOAR: The lights off a lot; working long days. The development of Energy Consumers Australia is a particularly positive step, as the national market evolves and respective states transfer their powers to the commonwealth. With those few words, we commend the bill.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:01): I advise that I am the lead speaker, but I will not take much of the house's time. I thank my colleagues for filling in and going first, and they have no doubt ably covered most of the issue. I also direct anybody who has an interest in this issue to the minister's second reading speech, which is very straightforward, direct, succinct, and explains the issues very well, too. There is no need for me to go over too much of that other than to say again that this is an initiative which the Council of Australian Governments and their Energy Council is looking at doing. With South Australia being the lead state for energy, it is the first to try to implement it, it is something that has been agreed nationally across other states and it is something that the opposition supports. It does seem to be a very positive step forward.

As I heard the member for Flinders mention, it is generally believed that across the range of electricity consumers the very large consumers—while of course their bills are gigantic and they feel, perhaps, the greatest burden—do probably have the greatest capacity to represent themselves. For the very small and possibly the disadvantaged end, while there can never be enough support for people living with disadvantage, there is a range of organisations and services who advocate on their behalf. It was felt that the very large group of people in the middle, essentially households and small businesses, were not getting enough representation, and that to swap from the Consumer Advocacy Panel to Energy Consumers Australia would be a positive move, and that does seem to be the case. Of course, I am sure that people at the larger end and the smaller end would always think that they could do with some more representation, but that logic seems to be pretty sound.

The cost of this scheme is, of course, an important issue. It does not come for free. I had a very positive briefing from the minister's staff and was assured that, to the best of their knowledge, 65¢ or less would be the cost of the scheme. Their advice was that the average cost per customer represented by the ECA would be approximately 64¢. It is not possible for them to know exactly what it will be, but I think that that is reasonable, and certainly other representatives whom I have spoken to think that is reasonable as well.

Again, there is always a debate: electricity prices are going up and up and the burden of bills is higher and higher all the time. Every little bit does make a difference, but if you stand back and take a look at it, 64¢ per year per customer does seem like a very fair cost to have this sort of advocacy done well on your behalf.

That view is supported by the Small Business Commissioner. I wrote to the Small Business Commissioner and received advice from him, and I am sure that the minister and his officers would have received exactly the same advice, that essentially he is supportive of this. He thinks it is good value and he thinks it is a positive move. SACOSS as well came back and said that they were also very supportive of the move.

Both of them said it was not perfect but they did say that they did not have significant suggestions to put forward for trying to improve it and they were very comfortable that the government is on the right track heading this way, as are all other governments across the nation. Of course, that gives the opposition a great deal of comfort as well. They did also both raise, though, not a concern but an interest in the make-up of the board. In the minister's second reading speech, he said:

Energy Consumers Australia will be established as a company limited by guarantee, governed by a constitution with a…skill-based board comprising of one chair and four directors.

Both SACOSS and the Small Business Commissioner expressed a desire that they—and I am sure they meant them or their organisation—could actually have a role on that board within South Australia.

I did want to ask the minister about this specifically at the committee stage, but when I hunted through the bill, I could not actually find anything specifically about the board, so there is not really a clause to investigate. I ask very directly of the minister whether, in his summing-up remarks, given that it was included in the second reading speech, he would be able to respond to the desire of SACOSS and the Small Business Commissioner to actually play a part themselves in the skill-based board that will advise the statutory body.

Most importantly, their question is: will there be people who have a genuine understanding of small business and a genuine understanding of people who require social services? Will people with that knowledge and with those skills be able to participate actively in the board and have a seat on the board? If the minister is able to comment on that in his summing-up, that would be good because, as I said, there is nothing specifically about it in the bill itself that I could point to during the committee stage.

In terms of the existence of the grants that are here at the moment, the Consumer Advocacy Panel has an overall operating budget of $6.2 million per annum and that includes grants of $2.5 million per annum, which are essentially given to organisations who might advocate for particular groups of customers. That is a very positive thing. I have assurances from the minister and his office that the level of those grants is expected to just roll right on and stay the same, so that ECA will have the same level of grant funding to offer to the broader group of advocates who would like to work in this space, as the CAP currently does. That is very positive.

It does not matter what topic you are dealing with, there is always concern that it might get more expensive over time than is currently forecast or that the grants might start to diminish over time. I have no doubt that the intention is for it to be exactly the same and I also know that the minister would not be in a position to make commitments for years down the track. I just put on record that that is obviously a very understandable and genuine concern that the broader public has.

While 64¢ on average per customer across all customer groups appears to be very fair, you would not want that to start to grow and, while transferring the same level of grant funding that exists at the moment from the Consumer Advocacy Panel to Electricity Consumers Australia seems very fair, they would not want that to start to reduce over time either. They are very important questions and I support those. I accept the fact that the minister probably cannot make any commitments with regard to that at all.

A very important area which I was able to get advice on from the minister's office in the briefing was with regard to: what classifies as a small business? What is a small business? There are a lot of definitions. Some go by number of employees, some go by turnover, there are a whole range of issues. I was advised that the definition of small business used for this bill would be, essentially, consumers using less than 100 megawatt hours per year.

As I think I heard the member for Flinders say, to give it some context, a household is using six to seven megawatt hours per year, so that gives you some scope of what a small business might be considered to be up to. There is no doubt that, in the context of this particular bill (energy consumption and advocacy), judging a business by its electricity consumption would be a much smarter way to go than by its turnover, its number of employees or any other measure you might use, because that is the core of the issue.

So, I am very comfortable with the bill. I would be grateful, if the minister has the opportunity, to put forward some comments with regard to the broad make-up, which I ask on behalf of those two organisations and the opposition. It may well be, in fact I expect they would have given exactly the same advice and asked the same questions directly to the government. I will finish up with that, Deputy Speaker. The opposition is very pleased to support the bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:11): I too rise to speak about the Statutes Amendment (Energy Consumers Australia) Bill. I want to put on the record my support for any reform that will assist to reduce the cost of living pressures on families and businesses when it comes to the use of power, particularly when the power component is one of the major costs of businesses. I want to reflect a little bit on the cost of power particularly to lifting water, pressurising water and the efficiencies that are now costing those irrigators by being some of the most efficient water users. It is having an adverse effect on the cost of power, so it is really having a huge impact.

It is important to acknowledge that the burden placed on farming irrigators these days was once a cost that was just part of running a business; nowadays it is the major input cost in irrigation. Once upon a time, we would always put a third a third a third: the running costs, the cost of labour and the cost of renewing and taking something off for putting food on the table; nowadays the cost of power (in some instances) is up over 40 per cent with the cost of production. So, I guess particularly Riverland irrigators are effectively paying for that water efficiency. It is not only lifting water from the river by pump into a pipe, it is about pressuring the water into a pipe and lifting it.

Many of the highland irrigation settlements are between 30 and 60 feet above the river and it is a growing concern to put water into a pipe and pressurise it and to remain efficient irrigators, We are now losing that advantage when it comes to the bottom line in competing with our interstate counterparts. I must say that while South Australia is rubbing its fist on its chest and saying how efficient it is, the other states are now looking at us saying, 'What a wonderful system we have here using gravity and not having to use that power,' and they are reaping the rewards. Sadly, while we talk about efficiencies within water delivery, we are losing our competitive edge in a very significant manner.

I said a little bit about while the Premier has claimed to have fought for South Australia's efficient water use and recognise that during the basin plan he campaigned to gain more water, sadly, the Premier and the government are still sitting on their hands and South Australian power consumers, particularly in small business have suffered as a result—and I acknowledge the member for Stuart's description of what is a small business. I think that any small business that uses any amount of power is feeling the effects in relation to the impact on their bottom line.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan will require more electricity here in South Australia, and it will require more electricity usage on irrigated farms to enable the communities to remain efficient and viable. As I have said, we have lost that efficiency and viability, and it continues to grow. I do not see the cost of power levelling or reducing any time soon; it seems only to be increasing. In relation to the power providers, whether they are gold plating everything they own, it is coming at a huge cost to those irrigation settlements and communities.

As some examples, I want to talk a little about the Central Irrigation Trust, which is responsible for the management of about 12 districts. It is a private company that has its headquarters located in Barmera, and it operates irrigation systems on behalf of those 12 districts. It services about 15,500 hectares of horticultural crop, which is all irrigated. It also provides drainage services to about 1,400 farms as well as nearly 3,000 domestic households and industrial sites. Over the past four years, CIT's energy bill has doubled, in round figures: it has gone from about $2 million to over $4 million. This year alone, CIT is forecasting an increase of 16.2 per cent in its power costs.

One of the other burdens that particularly the Riverland is paying for is the exporting of power across the border. In relation to exporting power out of South Australia into Victoria, the marginal loss factor of that is about 6 per cent, particularly for CIT; that is costing that business about $100,000 a year. While that power is in the lines here in South Australia, for it to be exported into Victoria is costing that one business about $100,000 a year. The loss in subsidies is being picked up by Riverland power consumers. I think it is outrageous that particularly the irrigation sector is picking up the burden for shipping South Australia's power interstate.

The CEO of the Irrigation Trust said, 'We've looked at all sorts of other and diverse options, such as solar power,' but it just does not stack up, with irrigators, particularly in relation to demand. When you hit a button, you have to start up. Nowadays, they are not large pumps. There are many multistage pumps, soft start, variable speed. They have invested significant amounts of money, but we continue to see those power bills skyrocket out of control.

If we were to do anything with renewables, it would have to be done remotely, particularly with photovoltaic cells, to try to run pumps, which means that we would have to put back into the network grid, and we would be charged for that privilege. We continue to look for alternatives and ways in which we can do it better and to make our costs cheaper.

The Renmark Irrigation Trust is a community-owned service provider, which was founded in 1893. It has 600 properties, with 4,500 hectares of horticulture on irrigated land. Its increased supply charges from SA Power Networks has been a major issue, and they are being forced to pass that cost onto the consumer, particularly at peak periods. Many of you would understand that, nowadays, we use efficient techniques for irrigating, such as drip irrigation. Drip irrigation is about water on demand, that is, when the plants need the water, they have to be watered, where, once upon a time, with flood irrigation and broadacre sprinklers, you could water through the night and you could saturate the land. Nowadays we water small root zones and we irrigate them on demand, so we cannot just irrigate off peak. We have to irrigate when the plant needs it and that is usually in the heat of the day.

One thing that we have set up in the Riverland is a Riverland energy association and it is made up of 14 large members who represent a variety of industries. Their Chair is the manager of the wine group in Loxton, Trevor Davidson. Wineries consume a lot of power and they have cooperatively worked to reduce energy costs. That is in its infancy. Plans include the possibility of creating a new energy provider but, obviously, the first steps will be to conduct studies of energy usage across the region and how we can buy power collaboratively.

In closing, family and small businesses in the electorate are being severely impacted by the cost of power. It has become a huge part of the input costs of a business. I hope that formation of Energy Consumers Australia will provide some relief in this area. I have 8,736 families in my electorate, according to the latest ABS, and the median weekly household income is $821, so we have many low-income earners who just simply cannot afford it.

This week I saw a new report that shows South Australia has the highest rate of power disconnections in the nation, and that is more than doubling the 10,000 in the past four years. With a very hot summer predicted—many air conditioners, all the pumps running—energy usage will be high, so I support the establishment of a national energy advocacy body. However, time will tell as to its influence on current skyrocketing power prices. South Australia must do something to reduce the cost-of-living burden to families and small businesses. I hope that supporting the Energy Consumers Australia Bill will give some credence to power prices and I welcome any way that we can reduce those power prices or stem the increase.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (16:22): I would like to thank the opposition for indicating their support for this bill. It is fair to say that this bill was born through the former process of the SCER, which is now the resources ministers' Energy Council, spearheaded by Mr McArdle, the Queensland energy minister, who wanted to have a bit more expertise and consumer advocacy on behalf of electricity users.

It is fair to say that the former federal minister, Mr Ferguson, took that on board and it has been seen through by the current minister, Mr Macfarlane. I think it is fair to say that I have the highest regard for Mr Macfarlane and Mr Ferguson, probably two of the finest commonwealth ministers the resources and energy sector has ever had. Those two people have worked cooperatively together and have a very good understanding of the industry and I am happy to do my part to help reforms that will give greater voice to consumers.

Often electricity reform can be quite difficult and cumbersome. It can take a long time and other jurisdictions, which are in the midst of election campaigns, are often quite relieved that South Australia is a lead legislator in this field because they can rely on us to get the legislation through relatively quickly to implement those reforms, so I thank the opposition for the position they have taken.

In terms of what is meant by a skill-based board comprising of one chair and four directors, the constitution of Energy Consumers Australia Limited will provide for the board to be selected by a determination of the Energy Council, having regard to the skills matrix set out in schedule 1 of the constitution, which I will go into in a moment. That matrix set out in schedule 1 details the role of the board, the general skills and experience that are required and a desirable level of mix. In addition to that, specific roles are required, and specific skills, knowledge and experience required for the Chair. A version of the constitution has been publicly released on the COAG Energy Council website, so I refer members to that website.

The role and skills of the board under principle 1 of the ASX Corporation Governance Principles are set out, and I understand they are generic ones for all board directors; I could be wrong, but that is my reading of it. It states:

In addition, the role of the Board of the ECA must include:

Ensuring processes are in place that provide stakeholders with opportunities to input into strategic planning for the organisation.

That means governance from the concerned sector and of course energy users and energy retailers.

Establishing an effective, independent national energy consumer advocacy body, in accordance with the law and the company's Constitution and Objectives.

Establishing the corporate governance agenda and ensuring that it remains properly focused and balanced across all areas requiring consideration by the Board.

Obviously, the role involves 'developing a risk management strategy that addresses risk appetite and preparedness to take informed and strategic risks' and interacting with stakeholders, active engagement with the chief executive and a whole other raft of requirements.

Getting on to general skills and experience, I am reading directly from schedule 1, General Skills and Experience:

The following general skills and experience are required by all Board members.

Strategic expertise—the ability to constructively set and review strategy.

Corporate governance—

that is important, as are accounting and finance and legal, managing risk, and:

Collegiate style and the highest standards of integrity and ethics.

Excellent communication skills.

No material commitments or affiliations that may conflict with the interests of ECA.

Credibility [a very important criterion] with key energy market stakeholders and participants.

One of the big issues we have had in this state is that some of the people who were the regulators had very low standing amongst the energy retailers and distributors. Under Specific Skills and Experience are consumer advocacy and legal knowledge, as well as:

Knowledge of legislation and legal issues associated with energy markets, including the National Electricity Law, National Gas Law, National Energy Retail Law and associated Rules and Regulations [and, of course] knowledge of the Australian Consumer Law, as well as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 [the commonwealth act] as relevant to the economic regulation of Energy utilities (at least two to three Directors).

Accounting and finance—

which are obviously very important, as is grant administration, and I know the member was talking about the grant lines. The budget, I am advised, would be approved by the energy minister's council, but the way that money is spent will be decided by the board. Obviously, I would like to see grants always being made available to the consumer sector so that they can advocate but, of course, that would be a matter for the board, I am advised. Specific Skills and Experience include experience within the energy industry, economics, public policy and regulatory experience, and at least one of the directors must have that. Desirable skills include:

A demonstrated commitment to, and/or experience in, furthering the long term interests of consumers—

which is very important, and:

Energy industry knowledge, including the operation of the National Electricity Market, Australian gas markets and the Western Australian and Northern Territory electricity market—

which are not connected to the national electricity market. It continues:

Understanding of Energy consumer issues, including small business, residential, remote and regional and indigenous consumer issues, in addition to associate policy and research needs.

Understanding of the environment in which ECA operates, including the Council of Australian Governments and Standing Council on Energy and Resources reform agenda and government and political processes in the energy industry.

Experience managing, mentoring and developing senior executives.

The chairperson, who will be very important, is expected to have the following specific skill set, knowledge and experience:

Experience in Chairing boards, committees, industry associations or other similar bodies or organisations.

Strong corporate governance skills.

Dispute resolution skills.

Credentials to represent the Board externally with a broad range of senior stakeholders as required.

And, most importantly, no conflicts of interest. I hope that goes some way to answering the concerns of the opposition. I commend the department for their tireless efforts and hard work in preparing this bill and I hope it has a speedy passage through both houses of parliament—and, of course, my ever-diligent ministerial adviser, Mr Antonopoulos.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (16:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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