HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-06-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Electricity and Gas) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 June 2016.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (15:49): I rise to make a brief but localised contribution on the Statutes Amendment (Electricity and Gas) Bill 2016. In doing so, I want to focus my attention on a couple of parts. I know when Active Tree Services come to prune in my electorate because it is the point at which I get calls and emails to my office.

I understand that, in this bill, we are seeking to enable electricity entities to prune or remove hazardous trees outside of the currently prohibited buffer zones around powerlines, to allow trimming or removal of trees that may fall onto powerlines but are otherwise outside the buffer zone, and to enable authorised officers to enter land for the purpose of inspection without written consent in prescribed bushfire zones.

Currently, officers are only allowed to enter land with written consent. This provision will still exist for areas outside the bushfire zone areas. There are certainly some changes. Whilst I understand we are considering our final position on this, the community certainly takes a very strong interest in how trees are trimmed in their electorate, especially in tourist-rich areas that inevitably and invariably are visited on the basis that they are picturesque parts of our state.

I understand the need for fire safety. In fact, of any MP in here over the last three years, I think I understand that better than anyone. The fact is my electorate has burnt every summer for the past three years, and we are looking forward to a fire-free summer. We certainly cannot have any situation where trees are at risk of falling onto powerlines or interacting with powerlines in a way that potentially starts fire. We have a lot of sympathy for that but, having said that, it seems, in a variety of ways, that the tree trimming conducted in my electorate in particular is not done appropriately.

The first example I will talk about involves a guy called Bruce. Bruce lives in Angaston and has been part of the Angaston community for a long time. His son Matthew is one of the favourite sons of Angaston. He is a very prominent local footballer. Bruce came up to me at a footy match and said, 'Stephan, I have a truck and a crate on the back of the truck,' and this crate carries livestock—sheep and cattle—around the place.

He says he has a few contracts, but every time he comes back from Eden Valley or Springton and heads into Angaston, basically every few months, when he drives down that track and it has not been trimmed properly, all the lights he is required to have on the corners of his crate get knocked off by trees. He says that, if he does not replace those lights, he gets in trouble and is pulled over by police and road safety authorities. It is frustrating because the government does not provide him with a route on which he can drive that does not do damage to his truck. I have written to the minister, and he sent back a response but, interestingly, the tree trimming that was conducted in that regard has not been sufficient.

I move on now to an interesting example regarding issues with pruning around powerlines. I have a vineyard owner who had lines drooping low into their property. Someone suggested that may be a hazard that would need to be fixed, but the powerlines drooped so low over that portion of the vineyard they could not mechanically harvest that portion or mechanically prune, meaning they actually had to mechanically harvest around it, but on that strip, they essentially had to get out and do everything else by hand.

The answer we got back from SA Power Networks was, 'We don't believe this to be a fire safety risk; therefore, we are not going to do anything about it.' We appealed that decision to the Office of the Technical Regulator, who turned around and said, 'Hang on, you are right.' Subsequently, SA Power Networks have come out and raised the lines. I think, last year for the first year, the vineyard owner was able to mechanically prune their entire vineyard, which was a great result and I think a win for safety. These are two examples, and we have had a good outcome in one and not a great outcome in the other.

There is a woman called Shirley who, again, lives in Angaston. I have known Shirley for a long time. She is a wonderful small business owner who runs a B&B in Angaston and is a solid contributor to our community. She is involved in the show society and lots of community groups within Angaston, but one thing that really frustrates her, and frustrates her to the point of being motivated to write letters, get involved and challenge councils and SA Power Networks, is around the pruning of trees down the main street of Angaston and surrounding areas.

Again, the Barossa, as a tourist destination, relies on being a beautiful, picturesque place in which the landscape melds with the human development that has occurred. Obviously, we are not talking here about a pristine landscape. What we are talking about is a working agrarian landscape that has industrial buildings and residential buildings. Shirley is extremely frustrated by the way that trees are trimmed around powerlines in and around Angaston.

Essentially, not only are trees lopped off for safety but they are butchered in a way that they become ugly eyesores hanging around the Barossa. Quite specifically, I am thinking of Stonewell Road (but it could actually be Light Pass Road at that point), where a group of trees is sitting under a powerline and they have been essentially just hacked in half and then a little bit more lopped off the side so there is a trunk and this weird mangling of branches. It looks like somebody has come along with a big metal Frisbee and just flipped off the top of the trees. It is like a really bad Bart Simpson haircut, and it does detract from the look of the area.

Again, whilst we all understand that fire safety is important, especially in areas where there is a lot of tourism—and in the Barossa we get somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 tourists a year—it is important that we maintain trees in a way that is in keeping with the importance of the landscape within which those trees sit. I understand that this bill is essentially trying to give greater leeway for Active Tree Services, in this instance, to conduct their tree trimming in a way that is potentially less bureaucratic. By the same token, it will also mean less notification to the locals especially, for instance, where they have to go onto people's properties.

What I would ask in this situation, and what I would plead in this situation, is for there to be an ability for greater oversight and greater input into the way that trees are trimmed, as opposed to just necessarily the process by which notification and consent are given. We are not getting the best outcome that we can. Considering that, off the top of my head, we pay Active Tree Services somewhere between $30 million and $40 million a year to trim trees across the state, I think for that kind of money we are entitled to get a decent outcome.

For all of those residents of the Barossa Valley who have contacted my office over the last couple of years to express their frustration, I am grateful that I have been able to present those frustrations here in parliament. Hopefully, the right people are listening in order that we can get a better outcome and that we can enhance the beautiful Barossa Valley and the tourist attraction that it is.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:57): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Electricity and Gas) Bill 2016. This bill is supposedly to improve the effectiveness and operation of legislation, and it was introduced only in May into this house. It is seeking to address a number of issues relating to electricity and gas in this state, including the safety and technical standards, administrative and legal matters, and a lot of these issues have become apparent over time.

The key measures in the bill indicate that it enables electricity and entities to prune or remove hazardous trees outside the currently prohibited buffer zones around powerlines, which means that it allows trimming or removal of trees that may fall onto powerlines but are outside that buffer zone. It enables authorised officers to enter land for the purpose of inspection without written consent in prescribed bushfire zones. Currently, officers are allowed to enter land only with written consent, and this provision still exists for areas outside the bushfire zone areas.

The bill also grants authorised officers additional investigatory powers, an increase in maximum penalties and expiation notices, and new offences are being introduced. In this bill, prosecutions for noncompliant work are enabled to be brought within three years instead of two years, as noncompliant work is often not identified within two years. It also modifies the privilege for self-incrimination, making information a person may give relating to the safety of electrical installations and equipment inadmissible as evidence, transferring the administration process for approving safety reliability maintenance and technical management plans from ESCOSA to the Technical Regulator.

The bill also establishes a regime for assurances and enforcement orders to avoid legal proceedings ending up in court. It also extends the Technical Regulator or an authorised officer to direct an electrician or gas fitter to rectify defective electrical or gas installation work or equipment if the work was carried out in the last two years. Most of the issues in this bill are not controversial, but the issue that has been raised by the member for Schubert and others in this place relates to vegetation clearance.

As regional members, it is an issue that is brought home to us quite often. The member for Schubert discussed the role of Active Tree Services in trimming trees under the legislation. Currently, under the legislation's powers and duties relating to infrastructure, entry can be made onto land to conduct surveys. That entry must be made by agreement with the occupier of the land or on the authorisation of the minister. The minister may also authorise an electricity entity to enter and remain on land under this section on conditions the minister considers appropriate.

One thing that is in the act, as we know now, is that if an electricity entity enters land under the authorisation of the minister it must give reasonable notice of the proposed entry on land under this section to the occupier and must minimise the impact of work carried out by the electricity entity on activities of others on the land and must comply with the conditions of the authorisation.

The clearance of vegetation from powerlines and access to properties is the most controversial part of this legislation. I will quote section 55 of the current legislation—Duties in relation to vegetation clearance:

(1) An electricity entity has a duty to take reasonable steps—

(a) to keep vegetation of all kinds clear of public powerlines under the entity's control other than powerlines in relation to which the duty to keep vegetation clear is conferred on a council under a vegetation clearance scheme; and

(b) to keep naturally occurring vegetation clear of private powerlines under the entity's control, in accordance with the principles of vegetation clearance.

(1a) A vegetation clearance scheme may, in accordance with Division 2, confer on a council the duty to take reasonable steps to keep vegetation of all kinds clear of public powerlines that are—

(a) designed to convey electricity at 11 kV or less; and

(b) within both the council's area and an area prescribed by the regulations (a prescribed area); and

(c) not on, above or under private land,

in accordance with the principles of vegetation clearance.

(2) The occupier of private land has (subject to the principles of vegetation clearance) a duty to take reasonable steps to keep vegetation (other than naturally occurring vegetation) clear of any private powerline on the land in accordance with the principles of vegetation clearance.

(3) If vegetation is planted or nurtured near a public powerline contrary to the principles of vegetation clearance, the entity or council that has the duty under this Part to keep vegetation clear of the powerline may remove the vegetation and recover the cost of so doing as a debt from the person by whom the vegetation was planted or nurtured.

(4) If a council or occupier should have, but has not, kept vegetation clear of a powerline under an electricity entity's control in accordance with a duty of the council or occupier under this Part, the electricity entity may carry out the necessary vegetation clearance work (but the entity incurs no liability for failure to carry out such work).

(5) Any costs incurred by an electricity entity in carrying out vegetation clearance work under subsection (4) or repairs to a powerline required as a result of failure by a council or occupier to carry out the duty of the council or occupier under this Part may be recovered as a debt from the council or occupier.

(6) This Part operates to the exclusion of common law duties, and other statutory duties, affecting the clearance of vegetation from a public powerline or a private powerline, and so operates with respect to vegetation clearance work whether the work is carried out by the person having the duty under this Part to keep vegetation clear of the powerline or in pursuance of a delegation or by a contractor or other agent.

Already under the act there are authorised officers' powers and there is a power of entry clause, section 68, and in subsection (1):

(1) An authorised officer may, as reasonably required for the purposes of the enforcement of this Act, enter and remain in any place.

(2) When an authorised officer enters a place under this section, the authorised officer—

(a) may be accompanied by such assistants as the authorised officer considers necessary or appropriate; and

(b) may take any vehicles or equipment the authorised officer considers necessary or appropriate for the functions the authorised officer is to carry out in the place.

(3) An authorised officer may use reasonable force to enter a place under this Part if—

(a) the entry is authorised under a warrant under Part 9; or

(b) the entry is necessary in an emergency.

(4) When entering a place under a warrant or by force in an emergency, an authorised officer may be accompanied by a member of the police force.

In regard to the power to enter for vegetation clearance purposes, under section 57:

(1) An electricity officer for an electricity entity or council officer may, at any reasonable time, enter and remain on land to carry out vegetation clearance work that the entity or council is required or authorised to carry out under this Part.

(2) Subject to this section, if an electricity officer or council officer seeks to enter land under this section, the officer must give not less than 30 days written notice to the occupier of the land—

(a) stating the reason and the date and time of the proposed entry; and

(b) stating the nature of the clearance work to be carried out; and

(c) otherwise complying with the requirements of the regulations.

(2a) Subsection (2) does not apply if the clearance work to be carried out is subject to a vegetation clearance scheme.

(3) If the proposed entry is refused or obstructed, an electricity officer or council officer may obtain a warrant under Part 9 to enter the land.

(4) In an emergency, an electricity officer or council officer may exercise a power of entry under this section—

(a) at any time and without prior notice if it is not practicable to give such notice; and

(b) if necessary in the circumstances, by the use of reasonable force.

(5) When an electricity officer or council officer enters land under this section, the officer—

(a) may be accompanied by such assistants as the officer considers necessary or appropriate; and

(b) may take any vehicles or equipment the officer considers necessary or appropriate for the functions the officer is to carry out on the land.

(6) An electricity officer may not enter a place under a warrant or by force in an emergency unless accompanied by a member of the police force.

(7) When entering a place under a warrant or by force in an emergency, a council officer may be accompanied by a member of the police force.

I would have thought with all those current sections and subsections in the legislation that pretty well everything was covered already as far as the entering onto land is concerned. There are emergency powers that can be invoked, and certainly warrants can be invoked and people can be accompanied by a member of the police force. The most contentious issue is the regulations in respect of vegetation clearance, and this is section 58 in the current act:

(1) The Governor may, after consulting with the Minister responsible for the administration of the Environment Protection Act 1993, make regulations dealing with the clearance of vegetation from, or the planting or nurturing of vegetation near, public or private powerlines.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may—

(a) authorise the making of agreements between electricity entities and occupiers of land with respect to vegetation clearance work around powerlines on, above or under the land; and

(b) provide to owners or occupiers of land a right to object to a Minister or other specified person or body against proposed vegetation clearance work by electricity entities or councils around powerlines on, above or under the land, and provide for the consideration and determination of such objections; and

(c) provide for a process under which vegetation clearance schemes with respect to public powerlines within council areas but not within the prescribed areas are negotiated, from time to time, between electricity entities and councils; and

(d) provide for the granting of exemptions from the principles of vegetation clearance; and

(e) make provisions of a savings or transitional nature; and

(f) fix a penalty not exceeding $5,000 for contravention of a regulation.

This is where the biggest issues come up in a rural electorate and, certainly, in bushfire zones, and I wish to note that Langhorne Creek in my electorate is rated as a bushfire zone. It is where I have had several complaints about the issue of tree trimming and notices not being given appropriately.

The Active team moves in and starts trimming trees. It seems to me that the trimming that happens in country areas compared with city areas is substantially different. They seem to want to give something like a five-year clearance to the growth of the trees, so they are actually slashed very low—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: A number one.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, they are given a number one, essentially. Yet, in urban areas, there are powerlines amongst the trees. Where is the equity in that? The tree trimming crews move in, when an owner of a property does not want those trees trimmed down at the main road in front of their property, especially in the case of a vineyard.

One of my local vineyards was the main proponent of a complaint against tree trimming. They are axing these trees, as the member for Stuart indicated, with a number one and it just takes away from the whole appearance of the property. Then the property owners and their staff have huge arguments with the Active tree trimming staff and it can get a bit ugly. In fact I have heard that some of the language can get quite colourful, quite unparliamentary. That is a huge issue that needs to be managed.

Also, as has been indicated, there is an issue with the nature of how trees are trimmed in accordance with the regulation. You will see a tree trimmed down to the level that it supposedly has to be due to the regulation on three-quarters of the tree, but then you will see these great limbs sticking out on the other side. It just disgraceful. You can have rows and rows of these trees where it would be quite sensible, and it would not be very hard, for the tree trimming crew to trim these trees appropriately to tidy them up.

At times I have had to get people out from SA Power Networks to assist with constituents who have had these issues. Not everyone is aware of this section in the act where you can authorise the making of agreements between electricity entities and occupiers of land with respect to vegetation clearance work around powerlines on, above or under the land. Many people need to be aware of this section, especially if they have not so much a boutique property but a property that they want to show off, for example if they want to attract people in the Langhorne Creek area to their cellar door.

Yet, you see the chainsaws come in and trim these trees under the powerlines down to about a metre and a half high, and it would take five or six years minimum for those trees to reach the powerline. It is just ridiculous. The problem we have is that all of a sudden this work has commenced. For whatever reason, the notice of entry has not been put in the appropriate place. It might have just been placed on a post down at the gate. It gets ugly, as I indicated earlier, where people just end up having a major argument about the process. Especially in the country, trimming of trees is done on what I believe is a three-year rotation, but it looks like they trim them hard enough to last for over five years before they will grow to be anywhere near a threat.

I repeat the member for Schubert's comments: we do not need bushfires and we do not need bushfire risk, but we also need to be sensible about the look of the country. As I said, there seems to be an inequity between what happens in the country areas—and they are not so far out, as Langhorne Creek is not that far out of the city—and what happens in the city. The beauty of it is that when people are made aware (usually, sadly, after the trees have been trimmed) that they can negotiate their own arrangements. They can negotiate arrangements that can be checked, and they can make an arrangement to trim those trees every year, and that becomes a far better arrangement. They still have to be the required distance from the lines, and I acknowledge all that.

Coming from the rural area, I have known sadly too many people with machinery operating close to powerlines and it has cost them their life. Some very good operators, who have just been probably a bit tired or a bit exhausted trying to get over some country or shift some grain with an auger, sadly have got close enough to a powerline to arc and it has cost them their life or the life of one of their family or one of their workers with them. Certainly, coming from the country, we understand these risks and we do not want the risk of fire, but there needs to be some humanity about how this is managed.

I am sure that the Active Tree Services guys are doing their job. I am not sure if they employ many arborists, but it becomes an issue because there is conflict out there on the land. As has been said here before, there is a $30 million plus contract that goes to these people that we all pay for through our power providers. Power is getting dearer by the minute, especially when we see what has happened with the effect of policy in this state and we see our coalmine at Leigh Creek shut down just so that we can import electricity from Loy Yang in Victoria from brown coal base load power there, but that is Victoria's gain and our pain. I think that is madness, but I just put that out there.

I urge the minister to look at this and the right of entry. I do not think it is too hard, especially in these cycles of tree trimming and even in bushfire areas, for South Australian Power Networks and Active to have proper plans in place. They would have to have proper plans in place because they have their timed runs throughout the country. Surely, they have operational plans so that they know when to be in certain areas at certain times, when they have done the trimming in the past and where they need to be trimmed in the future. It should not be that hard.

There are bureaucracies behind all this. Surely, it is not impossible to give people notice for the right of entry for 30 days. I certainly believe that, under the current Electricity Act, there are plenty of clauses that allow for entry onto land to get the appropriate outcomes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:19): I am happy to sum up. I am going to rely on instinct. There is a scene in one of the Star Wars films (I cannot remember which one it was) where they take off from the little planetoid and they are heading up to blow up the Death Star. As they are flying along, this voice (I think it is Obi-Wan Kenobi, from memory) comes in Luke's ear and says, 'Use the force, Luke,' and he turns off his instruments and just uses the force. That is what I am doing now.

Can I just say that I did not hear all the contributions; I am sure they were all very good. I do understand the member for Hammond's concern about people in rural parts of the state who are at significant risk from fire and also have some concerns about incursions on their properties and other things of that nature. I am sure that everybody notes his comments. As for any other speakers, I of course thank them for their contributions. I commend this excellent piece of work to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Clause 4 is a pretty straightforward clause that talks about standards relating to the design of electrical installations, not just the actual installation itself. Have there been problems with designs? Can you give some examples of where there have been faults with designs as opposed to the actual work done and the installation or the maintenance that provide the need for this?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised in response to your question that there have been schematics for exit lights, for example, that have been put in the wrong place or not put up at all, so they are not compliant. That is the type of remedy we are looking for.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, would it not be the case that the design would be approved before the installation or the building or the development would actually take place?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Proof of design would be compliant. The electrician might have done the appropriate thing and followed the design to the letter, but the engineer who designed the schematics for the layout has provided noncompliant drawings to the electrician, and the electrician has carried it out, I am advised, and despite it being as instructed it is not compliant.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Who would adjudicate in that situation? Say there is an accident or a fire or some damaging event down the track, who would adjudicate in hindsight to say that it was the design that was at fault, or the installation or the maintenance that was at fault, or perhaps the body that gave the approval for the design?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised it would be the Office of the Technical Regulator.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am really just looking for an explanation of clause 6 because I am struggling to understand it. It might just be that I need some help here. Essentially, new section 10(3) of clause 6 provides:

…a natural person is not required to give information under this section if the information would tend to incriminate the person of an offence.

Then right below it section 10(4) provides:

If a natural person is required to give information under this section 30 relating to the safety of electricity infrastructure—

then that information may not be used to incriminate the person. I do not understand, and it might be because I am not legally trained, but why does one part say that a person would not be required to give the information if it might incriminate them and the next bit says, 'If they are required to give that information'? How does that work?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not legally trained so please do not scoff too much, deputy leader. I understand that modified privilege means that, if we require someone to give us information on other works that they have done that have not been compliant, they cannot be prosecuted for it because we required them to give that information. Now, obviously they do not incriminate themselves. So if we require them to give information, as I understand it, we cannot then prosecute them.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: If it is known in advance or if they claim that providing that information might tend to incriminate them then they still cannot be forced to provide it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We can compel them but we cannot prosecute them. We can compel them to tell us where the other faulty pieces of work they may have been instructed to do are so we can go about repairing them to mitigate fire risk and hazard, but they cannot be prosecuted for it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is one of the bits that I foreshadowed in my second reading speech that the opposition is extremely concerned about. This clause is about the ability for officers or authorised people to enter private property for the purpose of inspection within bushfire zones. Essentially, what the bill does is it changes from previously having to give written notice to making it that they do not have to give written notice.

Under the bill, they would not have to give written notice to enter private property in bushfire zones purely for the purpose of inspection, so nothing to do with an emergency, nothing to do with doing any work but just purely to have a look. It seems to me to be a situation under which there would be time to give notice and I cannot see any reason that the government would actually want to change this. Can the minister explain why the government seeks to require this?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. Members opposite have raised concerns in relation to the amendments to section 48 of the Electricity Act. This will take a bit of time for me to read into Hansard, so please be patient. The amendments are intended to enable an electricity officer appointed by an electricity entity to enter onto private land in a bushfire risk area at any reasonable time and without prior notice for the purpose of inspecting infrastructure owned by the electricity entity.

The proposed amendment is intended for the purposes of inspection only. If that inspection indicates that vegetation requires clearance for safety reasons, then the occupier of the property will be contacted and given 30 days' notice of the work, as is currently required under the act. Members opposite should note that SA Power Networks currently has the power to enter property at any time to inspect a customer's electricity installation.

This amendment was requested by South Australian Power Networks to enable it to inspect its infrastructure—overhead powerlines, in the main—crossing land in a bushfire risk area, and to assess vegetation growth which may be too close to power lines in the pre-summer months before an order is made under the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 to fix the annual fire danger season. In its submission in requesting this amendment, SAPN noted that it is 'committed to operating a safe electricity distribution network. Managing the risk of bushfire is a very important part of this commitment.' South Australian Power Networks states that there is an urgent need to have flexible regulatory arrangements for pre-summer infrastructure and vegetation inspection in bushfire districts, as these areas are subjected to heightened risk during the bushfire season.

SAPN—that is, South Australian Power Networks—raise several factors in support of more flexible regulatory arrangements for pre-summer inspection and clearance work: firstly, the practical limitations of identifying and delivering notices to landowners and occupiers in rural areas where most of the work occurs. Infrastructure inspection work has low impact on the land and is usually undertaken on foot or in low-impact vehicles which carry SAPN signage, although I understand the member raised some issues about the degradation of land through trampling, so I am cognisant of that.

They also go on to say there is an opportunity during these inspections to identify potential hazards, including hazardous trees which may fall onto powerlines. SAPN has a limited window of opportunity to enter onto land each year to undertake vegetation clearance to avoid potentially catastrophic outcomes during the bushfire season. SAPN must wait for the land to be sufficiently dry from the winter rains to gain access but also take into account the growth of new vegetation in the spring season.

This 'window' has become more limited in recent times due to the bringing forward of the bushfire season as land becomes drier earlier in the year. To illustrate, the end of winter rains occur in August/September, and the fire danger season has usually been fixed at 1 December. However, in recent times, the fire danger season has been brought forward from 1 December to 1 November, which allows SAPN far less time to enter upon land and access pruning requirements.

Due to the shrinking opportunity to perform this necessary pruning, SAPN wishes to eliminate the requirement to contact property owners or occupiers when it enters onto land to conduct inspections of its infrastructure and surrounding vegetation. SAPN wishes to streamline the process to contact the owner or occupier only where there would be vegetation pruning required. This will allow more time for the negotiation of vegetation clearance issues with landowners. I think, to summarise, their submission to us is the greater call here for inspection rather than works, although I take the opposition's point that that can be intrusive.

SAPN notes that significant time is spent attempting to locate owners of properties as there is increased turnover of land being leased to primary producers and that this time could be better spent inspecting infrastructure and land to access clearance requirements. SAPN also advises that, if it employs additional employees during the season to address a vegetation clearance issue, those employment and other costs may be passed through to all customers in South Australia, some of whom are already experiencing financial difficulty with meeting high-energy costs.

Where vegetation clearance work is not completed by the time the bushfire season is upon us, the power line in question is placed on a disconnection list. This means that it is important to the property owner or occupier, and the surrounding community, that every effort be made to allow timely access to power line easement corridors to allow for inspection of power lines and ascertain vegetation clearance requirements. SAPN advises that a powerline on the disconnection list may be needed to be disconnected on days of extreme or catastrophic bushfire risk with potentially adverse consequences to both the property owner or occupier and the community supplied by that powerline.

It is also noted that the honourable member for Bragg, Ms Chapman—happy birthday by the way—in quoting from the 2014-15 Annual Report of the Office of the Technical Regulator to support her argument that this data shows that it is not reasonable to permit SAPN to enter upon private property at a reasonable time and without notice, specifically makes mention of the fire starts reported by ElectraNet Transmission assets in 2013-14 as none and in 2014-15 as one. With respect, I am advised this is not the most salient data to refer to in relation to this issue. I am saying, 'with respect'—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Bragg!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are having a polite conversation on her birthday. It is okay. The more relevant data is for fire starts reported by South Australian Power Networks in relation to the distribution network system. The figure for that in 2014-15 was 50.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I appreciate your getting that information from SAPN. I would suggest that, given the shrinking amount of time that is necessary, it might actually help SAPN and other authorities to be more organised. They could send the written notification out well in advance. They do not need to give only the minimum amount of written notice. They could send a letter six months early saying, 'We plan to come and inspect your property at this time.'

I also put on the record that the overwhelming majority of property owners accept that these inspections are important and that they are necessary. They just want to know who is on the land. I ask the minister: are there examples of where giving this written notice in advance for the purpose of inspections has caused difficulty for SAPN?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have to say that I am very sympathetic to the opposition's argument about access to private property. I am.

Ms Chapman: Without notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Without notice. I think the shadow minister said in his remarks, 'Why can't we just give a blanket six months' notice, saying that people within these easements—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: As an example.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As an example, yes. I think that is a very reasonable compromise that we could probably come to, but I want to give SAPN as much flexibility as possible. This is the Technical Regulator's reasoning and I think from our perspective, given the royal commission into the bushfires in Victoria.

As inspections are done, work becomes apparent. Putting out a work program well in advance about what you are going to do relies on very accurate inspections. Sometimes, that work can change depending on the nature of fires, the level of rain and the terrain you are in. What SAPN are attempting to do is they want to be spending less time on notification and more time on inspections. In between there somewhere is a compromise that we have to reach with the opposition about privacy and about land access issues. It always comes down to land access issues between the opposition and me.

There can be a happy medium here. Given that SAPN already have the right to enter people's land to inspect their own assets, as I stated earlier, vegetation clearance near powerlines is a sensible compromise. Are there examples? Given that the last one I just read out to you showed that there were 50 fire starts in 2014-15 alone, it shows you how difficult it is for SAPN to keep up with the body of work of locating fire starts through their own infrastructure.

I think that should be alarming to all of us, given the nature of the Sampson Flat fire and the new way in which we have to deal with new farming techniques and the way that broadacre land is drying out a lot faster. We have seen very fast grass fires driven by wind accelerate across the plains, and we need to be able to get in there and inspect land quickly. Between the houses, I undertake to get more information for the opposition about relevant day-to-day examples, and hopefully I can make SAPN available to the opposition to give you a much more detailed briefing.

All I can do is assure the opposition, despite our differences, that there is no conspiracy here. We have the recommendations of the royal commission. SAPN have a regulatory obligation to make sure that they trim and minimise the risk that they are exposed to and that we are exposed to as a government on behalf of our community. We have a royal commission that has made some very important findings that they want us to implement.

We have gone to SAPN and asked their advice on what powers they think they need. They have made submissions to us, and we are attempting to enact them. The friction here is about property rights. I think we can find an appropriate compromise. I think the example that the shadow minister mentioned is a good one; that is, at the end of the fire season a general notice is put in papers across the state saying that SAPN will be doing inspections in these areas. They cannot tell you the time and day, but there will be a program of work being done.

I think there is something we can look at there, but if the opposition is going to dig in its heels and say to the government, 'No, no, we want the landowner to be contacted in advance and told exactly the time and date someone will be arriving,' I think that would be unworkable. When I say 'unworkable', we could probably make it work, but we would do a lot less work, fewer inspections and a lot less remediation. I am not trying to be difficult. I do want to find a compromise, because it is largely your constituents who are impacted by this, and I want to try to get it right.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thanks, minister, I appreciate that. I say again that the opposition and the landholders are not looking for fewer inspections; they are just looking for notice. I appreciate that you have said that you are willing to work constructively on that, and I certainly will too. I think something like the example about advance notice would be very productive, to say with months of notice (whatever the right number is) that in this area they will be doing inspections in this particular week, so that all the landholders know that during this one week SAPN plans to come into their area.

I would like to make one very important point. The minister talked about notice to do the work. This part of the bill is very clearly about inspections only and not about doing the work. It actually says that for the purposes of inspection 'in any other case', so other than inspection, the officers still need to provide the written notice. That is where I am coming from. This is not the urgent part. The inspection is not where they believe there is imminent danger. It is about sensible maintenance, and the inspection could easily be preplanned without giving too much extra administrative hassle or cost to SAPN. I appreciate the fact that we can work on that between the houses.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am pleased to hear the minister's indication that he will look at this matter because it does cause concern, and a number of speakers have made that perfectly clear. It is extraordinary to me that we are about to deal with another bill in this house that prohibits the owner of the property going in and even asking a tenant if they can go onto a property without notice.

I make the observation that we have a situation here where, for the convenience of SA Power Networks, which does not want to advise if they going to be traversing a property, they give reasonable notice, and they are seeking to be relieved of that obligation. It is too much paperwork, it takes too much time. There have been 50 incidents in the year of fighting, the minister says, quite possibly because they are busy filling out forms or giving notice to people. Well, I just do not accept that. I think that is totally erroneous, and I do not accept it at all. What I ask is if the inspections occur, as is proposed, without notice and there is a loss of stock or an interference with stock, how does the minister expect that is going to be compensated or attended to?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There are general provisions of compensation in the act already for any damage that they might do.

Ms Chapman: How do they know?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How do they know? Landowners, in my experience, know their land like the back of their hand and they know when work has been done on their land, especially where the powerlines are. If there has been loss or damage done, there are compensation measures already in the bill. I would also say that there are consequences of the work not being done in there being a catastrophic bushfire on that land with a loss of life, loss of stock, loss of agricultural land, loss of livelihood, loss of income. We are not attempting to make people's lives worse here, we are trying to protect people.

Again, I am attempting to restrain myself and work cooperatively with the opposition on this, but I do not think inflammatory language is necessary. I think what we are attempting to do here is we have a royal commission. Weather conditions are changing and changing dramatically. The fire season is coming upon us faster than it usually is. Members opposite know the bush better than we do, they know the country areas better than we do, they know that there is a drying occurring. You saw Barnaby Joyce last night talking about the general drying. Weather conditions are changing. There are more bushfire events that are becoming more dangerous.

What we are attempting to do here is minimise that risk while not just leaving people in the country in the dark through high danger bushfire days. The more work we can do trimming trees and clearing infrastructure around these lines, the more likely we are to maintain services in regional areas. There is no conspiracy here. We are attempting to do the right thing by regional South Australians, so I am happy for the member to be satisfied between the houses.

I will just say this: a landlord having the right to inspect a tenant is not the same as SAPN wanting to inspect its infrastructure on someone else's land because of a bushfire risk. It is completely different. We are not talking about landlords just turning up whenever they see fit to go and walk through the house when someone has a lease to occupy. We are talking about infrastructure that can kill people. We are talking about human life, loss of stock, productivity, bushfires. Without wanting to ramp up this debate, we live in the driest state on the driest continent in the world. We are more at risk of bushfires than other communities and they have devastating impacts. What we are trying to do is minimise that risk.

The CHAIR: The member for Bragg has a final question?

Ms CHAPMAN: This is my second.

The CHAIR: No, you said, 'How do they know?' and I counted that as a question. Move along.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry?

The CHAIR: You did. You said, 'How do they know?' and that was a question, so this is your third question. If you have another question, I will think about it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, can I just clarify this? I have asked one question.

The CHAIR: Then you were sitting down and said, 'How do they know?' and the minister had to answer that, so this is really your third question, but we will see if we can accommodate you after the member for Hammond has asked his three questions because he is keen to ask questions, too.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the request for entry at present where there is infrastructure traversing the private landowner's property, of which not all property needs to be cleared because it can go across gullies and does not actually get anywhere near timber, so that is usually known to the local contractor or operator as to what needs to be done and whose property needs regular trimming under it, etc. I would like to have some data on the number of inspections that are done by ElectraNet because I think they have the contract to do all this, and for the work to be done for trimming of vegetation. I mentioned in the second reading that I had not seen from the Victorian commission a recommendation of entry without consent, but I indicated that if it did exist I would like to know why it has taken some years for that to be implemented if it is such an important matter.

I would like the minister to understand that bushfire seasons also close earlier when there are early spring rains. Instead of opening, say, in the beginning of May, they can open in the beginning of April if there is plenty of green pasture around. That is modified according to the advice that is given, obviously, as to the safety to be able to commence cold burns, etc.

Is the minister expecting that there will be inspections by any other agency entering a property for these purposes, such as the native vegetation officer or some other instrumentality that would be responsible for bushfire management? If not, was there any recommendation in the Victorian commission, from which this has apparently emanated, that suggests that, or is it only for electricity workers?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My advice is that it is just for SA Power Networks. If SA Power Networks were to sell their assets and someone were to purchase them, they would be the new authorised officers. But, to the best of my knowledge—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: ElectraNet?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: ElectraNet? These are SAPN's assets. They are the ones with the responsibility, not ElectraNet. It is the other way round. I understand that SA Power Networks does it for ElectraNet, rather than the other way round, as mentioned by the deputy leader. No, this is not a government conspiracy to have native vegetation or DEWNR officers walking onto land and making other discoveries that may be breaches of other acts. This is simply about protecting people from bushfire risk.

I just say again that I share the opposition's hesitation about allowing people onto private property to undertake inspections without notice. I do share their concerns, but they are outweighed by the benefit. The benefit is the public good, the public value. The public value here is that we are protecting people's lives. We are protecting infrastructure.

As much as we debate power prices and power infrastructure and privatisation versus public ownership, it is such an essential utility that you only realise how important it is to people when it is gone. I can tell you that I remember, I think it was two years ago down in Goolwa, when there was a high bushfire risk day—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Four years ago.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Was it four years ago? We had to shut down powerlines because of the high winds—

Mr Pederick: And my phone started ringing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Hammond's phone started ringing because it was a hotspot of activity for tourists. People were out buying ice-creams or fish and chips or were out enjoying the weather, enjoying the day, and we had to shut down power and it was a massive cost to local businesses down there.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Was it? I think that probably was not intentional. Probably something else had occurred. I know what the member is saying. I understand her concerns but, if she were in my position, I suspect she would be doing exactly the same thing.

Mr PEDERICK: I just wonder whether we are having a bit of a Back to the Future moment here. It is certainly my experience in the last 15 to 20-plus years that we have had far more work with inspecting of lines with helicopters.

Ms Chapman: And drones.

Mr PEDERICK: Drones. Your local newspapers advise which areas the helicopter will be patrolling. It is a very efficient way of inspecting powerlines. I have seen it. They get low enough that You could just about grab the landing skids on the bottom of the helicopter while they inspected the insulators connected to your house. My concern is whether this is a cost-saving measure that SA Power Networks are instigating. It seems to me that using the helicopters has been extremely efficient.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Remember that whatever works they do are passed on to us through a regulated return, I am advised. But, yes, I think the member is right. There is an opportunity for us to use drones. There is an opportunity for us to use unmanned equipment by the roadside. That will occur once we start getting the appropriate CASA approvals in place and having a regulatory framework around the use of drones and the way we can do all this—absolutely.

I agree with him, but cost savings are good. Doing it cheaper with the same amount of work is better because in the end we all pay. If SAPN have found a way to do the same amount of work for less money, we should congratulate them on it, not criticise them for it. If helicopters are more expensive, and I suspect that they are, they should not be using them. They should be using the cheaper option because the cheaper option keeps power prices down.

Mr PEDERICK: It becomes quite unfeasible in a range of circumstances. Certainly, on the Far West Coast, especially in a crop situation, you would start damaging crops from the end of July on entry. From the Murraylands and further south, you start damaging crops severely after entry from late August. I understand the point about costs. We are all paying a fortune for power in this state. Either now or between the houses, could the minister bring back an analysis of why there certainly appears to me to be a push back from using what has been, in my mind, a very efficient practice, although I do not know about the cost, of using helicopters to check out lines right up to houses on single wire returns, for instance.

Back in the ETSA days, when there was conflict, one day I was involved in one: an electricity truck was sitting out in the middle of a paddock on a wet day churning up the paddock. It just creates angst. Using the helicopters certainly has been a very efficient way as they can cover many kilometres of line and inspect the insulators right there from the helicopter. I would appreciate some sort of cost-benefit analysis of that compared to a crew running around on the ground doing far fewer kilometres. I also acknowledge the hourly cost of running a helicopter, so I would appreciate some data at some stage in regard to the comparison.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I undertake to do that for the member. Oh, for the glory days when we owned ETSA and I could instruct them or tell them how to do these things, but it was not me who got rid of it.

The CHAIR: Another question, member for Hammond.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Hammond has the call and he has a question.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you. It might be more of a comment, but the minister—

The CHAIR: Well—

Mr PEDERICK: Well, I will ask a question.

The CHAIR: Excellent.

Mr PEDERICK: The minister indicated that, even with the situation now, the inspection cost is passed back onto government and if he can—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: To the consumers.

Mr PEDERICK: To the trimmers?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: To the consumers.

Mr PEDERICK: The consumers, sorry. It comes back to consumers, so I reiterate that I would be very keen to see the cost comparison because I certainly believe that it is very efficient doing it with helicopters.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, you have a question about the heading of part 5.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to powers, other than the police with a warrant, or in an emergency or to rescue an animal under the RSPCA act, who else can enter your property without permission?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A meter reader, retail companies reading meters, gas readers, and SA Water can do so as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the basis that if it is for meter readers, where the meter is usually adjacent to the boundary from the footpath in the metropolitan area or on the side of the dwelling if there is a shed or dwelling on the property for reading, apart from that there is no other person who is able to conduct inspections. Do you agree?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Other than utilities, police and, as I understand it, fire. Other than electricity utilities, our gas utilities and our water utilities, yes, you must need some form of judicial approval, I am advised.

Ms Chapman: Or consent.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Obviously. Access to private property is a consensual arrangement. Let's take this to the extreme. I will give an extreme example to show how this argument can be manipulated any which way anyone wants. Is it reasonable to say to an SA Water meter reader who sees a burst pipe on their side of the meter, yet on private property, that they cannot go and deal with that immediately if they see that without the express permission of the landowner? No, but we are talking about access to private property. These arguments can be made on many levels, and I think it can get a bit ridiculous.

Ms CHAPMAN: During the second reading, I raised this issue and I would like an answer between the houses. On how many occasions has there been a request to access private property for the purpose of inspection and the application has been rejected?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, just to clarify, are you talking about electricity officers or are you talking about SAPN?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am talking about authorised officers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get that between the houses, but generally it is a measure to save time and cost.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This clause talks about getting an arborist report so that trees outside the buffer zone as determined by regulations, if the arborist recommends it, can be dealt with. I think everybody would accept that that is a pretty sensible principle. If a tall tree or something like that poses a risk, then it has to go. What assessment has been made by SAPN, the government or others involved in this, for this need, and what cost do they think it is likely to incur to do the arborist reports and the extra trimming as a result of the arborist inspections and reports?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This could be a bit of a detailed answer as well, and I apologise to the house. SAPN are given an envelope with which to do tree trimming. In order to protect trees, we ask that they do an arborist report. The arborist report obviously has a cost, which is part of the entire amount. If they were not required to do that arborist report, I think the general consensus in the community would be that SAPN saw their powerlines as much more valuable than a tree.

All the trees would be gone and you would see places like St Peters, dare I say Burnside and, dare I say, some of the leafier parts of South Australia barren because SAPN could save a fortune on maintenance and work by just chopping down trees at random. The arborist report is a limiting mechanism within the scope of their regulatory balloon, I suppose, of numbers that they can spend on this sort of thing. That is the advice I have. I think it is a good measure to protect trees, and it is also a measure that makes SAPN think very carefully about which trees they do remove.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I do not doubt the value of the arborist report. It seems sensible that you cannot just let them, outside the buffer zone, go and cut anything they want. My question is: has any assessment been done by the government of the cost of this, with the cost being the arborists' inspections, the arborists' reports and then the cost of dealing with the trees that are recommended to be felled?

The reason this is an incredibly important issue is twofold. At the 2015 AER sequence of work to do the five-year planning for electricity prices, vegetation clearance was a very important issue. SAPN asked for a certain amount of money and the regulator, partly on advice of the government, allowed them less money for this. However, a change in legislation allows SAPN to go back to the regulator and ask for an increase in the remuneration it receives.

While we are in the relatively early stages of a five-year setting, anything that is agreed by our parliament in this legislation opens the door for SAPN to go back to the regulator and say, 'Parliament has changed the rules. We will incur more costs, so we want more revenue—thanks,' if that is what they are inclined to do. That is a reason for asking the question, so I think it is beholden upon the government to have some estimate of what this change in regulation might cost.

I understand it would be impossible to come down to cents per kilowatt hour, but has the government done any assessment at all about what this might end up costing the consumer before the next five-year price inquiry?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is very difficult to say because things change over a five-year period: rainfall changes, climate conditions change and, given global warming is a real threat to our environment, it is very difficult for us to understand growth rates through trees. The advice I have is that the clearance of hazardous trees is not expected to lead to a significant increase in the overall cost of vegetation clearance. It is possible that electricity entities will wish to recover the cost for an application to the AER, but the benefit of the proposal is that it will substantially reduce the risk of bushfires and that clearly outweighs the cost of removing hazardous trees.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is my last question on this clause. This question refers to the very last bit of section 55AA(1), the bit that is in parenthesis at the bottom of that clause, where it talks about these rights that we have been discussing about getting an arborist inspection report and going to clear vegetation if the report recommends it. The clause very clearly says, 'but SAPN does not have to do that'.

Given the logic for this, which I think we all support, is that if there are trees that have the potential to cause danger they need to be dealt with, that makes good sense. However, it then says, 'but they don't have to deal with them if they don't want to'. So they require an arborist report to be allowed to do the vegetation clearance outside the buffer zone, but if they get an arborist report that recommends clearing that vegetation outside the buffer zone they do not have to do it. How does that gel with all of this being about actually preventing bushfires?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, if we had not included that clause, SAPN would have had a requirement to then clear trees—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That the arborist recommended?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —that the arborist recommended, and that would dramatically increase their insurance costs, which they would pass on to consumers, which would have a dramatic impact on power prices. The advice I have is that, given the Ash Wednesday event and the recommendations of the indemnification of ETSA, this is a way of managing that cost and their insurance levels. If we had a requirement that they must clear these trees and they do not, obviously, their cost of insurance to make sure they are covered for a bushfire event would be dramatic, and they would go to the AER and have those costs passed on to consumers. This clause is designed to mitigate that risk to consumers.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, I understand what you have said, but they would only be obliged to cut down the trees that the arborist recommended. So, it would not be any tree everywhere, just—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: But, if they do not, it is okay. If they were compelled to, they would have to insure against not having cleared all of those trees for a period, if there is a bushfire event.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: But, if the arborist has recommended that they do it to reduce the chance of a bushfire, should they not then be compelled to cut that tree down? SAPN goes to the arborist and says, 'I would like you to have a look at these trees in this area.' The arborist says, 'Yes, they are actually a risk. They should go.' Should SAPN not be compelled to cut those trees down, and would SAPN not be liable anyway, coming to your point about insurance premiums, if they were advised that a tree should be cut down, and they still did not do it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is more in the absence of the tree that they missed, the one there is no arborist report on at all, that causes the fire. We are giving them every opportunity to go out and minimise risk, but they are going to miss things. Let's be very clear about this: there is nothing that any of us can do in this house that will make a bushfire completely improbable. We minimise risk.

By having these amendments, we lower the insurance costs on SAPN, which therefore lower the costs to consumers. An arborist looks at the health of the tree and its ability to lose limbs and otherwise. Sometimes they are missed, and the one tree that the arborist does not have a report on could cause a fire. You are asking, 'Are they liable?' No, if they were liable, they would have to insure against it. If they insured against it, they could go to the regulator, and the regulator would pass those costs on to us.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Just to be really clear, because this is very important, it is the government's intent with this that SAPN would not be liable if they did not ask for reports on particular trees. If there were trees there that they did not think of or skipped, and they did not get a report on them, they would not be liable, but, if they did get an inspection, they did get a report and it was recommended, it is the intent of this bill that they definitely should deal with that vegetation and address that issue, as recommended by the arborist.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, even then, they are not liable.

Clause passed.

Clause 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is hopefully a quick, easy question on this increase in fines. The maximum fines go from $5,000 to $10,000. The $50,000 stays the same, and the expiation notice goes from $315 to $1,000. With regard to the maximum fines, who has the authority to decide, when there has been an infringement, whether the maximum or some lower fine is actually used?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that they would be prosecuted, and a court would determine the fine.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This question is on clause 15(2) with regard to the temporary disconnection of electricity supply to a premises. Right now, as I understand it, if work is done on a property, the electricity needs to be disconnected so that the work can be done. SAPN has to come and disconnect the power supply. The electrician or other contractors come and do that work. When they have done that work, SAPN has to come back and reconnect the supply.

I can understand that it would be attractive to smooth out that process and allow the contractor to do the disconnection and the connection before and after the work is done, so I get that bit. When I spoke with SAPN, they said that they were very concerned about this because they are worried about liability. Essentially, they are responsible in the bigger picture for the supply of electricity to the house. The contractor comes along and disconnects and connects again, and if it is not done properly they feel a little bit exposed.

The issues we were talking about previously, about arborists and vegetation, are things the government has done because SAPN have requested it. This is an area, at least to the opposition (and it may or may not be the same with the government) where SAPN have said, 'Actually, we don't want this. We would prefer to keep that responsibility.' They have said that it is for safety reasons and liability reasons. It might be because they prefer to do the work as well and that they prefer the income that comes with the work. There might be a significant commercial component in the advice they have given to the opposition. Minister, would you share with the house what advice you had from SAPN on this particular issue and how the government decided to proceed this way?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We raised it with them, and they raised no concerns with the government. If they are telling you something different, I am very concerned about what SAPN are saying to the opposition and what they are saying to the government, and I will raise it with Mr Stobbe immediately.

There have been provisions in the Electricity Act for 10 years that allow third-party meter providers to install a smart meter—10 years. It is now a nationally agreed policy to develop a market in this area. You might remember that in the last parliament, before the last election I moved an amendment that the opposition supported to stop the ability of the minister to roll out smart meters so that we could create a competitive market. No-one would enter the market if I had the ability to tell everyone what meter they were buying. I removed that power from the minister to try to create a competitive market, and now we are seeing it.

AGL are rolling out smart meters at no cost. Origin are about to begin doing the same. People can start getting smart meters, and the next step is time-of-use metering. These are important reforms we need to move towards. Make no mistake, I say to the opposition and the house, that we are getting in the middle of a boxing ring with three people who are slugging it out in a battle to the death: SAPN and the large retailers who will all make arguments to us about who should have the right on meters.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Origin, Alinta, Momentum, Energy Australia.—you name it, whoever, three, four, five. We need to be very clear about this. If we give monopoly power to one or another over this, there are serious consequences for consumers.

This amendment simply clarifies the position to make it quite clear that a meter can be disconnected prior to a reconnection, and this will avoid workers attempting to replace the meter while it is alive or energised. That is basically for safety reasons. Allowing metering providers to install replaced meters is not expected to affect electrical safety. Why? I am advised that AGL, Origin and SAPN usually hire the same contractor to do the same work anyway.

Regardless of whether the work is carried out on behalf of an electricity entity, or a metering provider, the actual work of installing or replacing a meter must be carried out by qualified people—for example, licensed electricians, or people specifically trained in the installation and replacement of meters. Where work is performed on behalf of the meter provider, the contractor performing the work will be required to issue a certificate of compliance after they have completed the work.

In the unlikely event that their work is faulty—and this can occur with SAPN because this is all outsourced of course—it is possible from the certificates of compliance to ascertain and to trace to people who did this and performed that work. This is an important reform. I have to say that I have heard the opposition talk about demand management; if they are serious about it, this is the clause they need.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, hopefully this is very straightforward. Does this clause do anything other than increase fees and fines? Are there any other powers or responsibilities included in this, or is this just purely about the dollars?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Apparently, it is just about the dollars.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, this question is about clauses 17 and 18, so that will save us a little bit of time. Has the government sought feedback from associations representing electrical contractors, plumbers, builders, etc., about clauses 17 and 18, and, if so, what was their feedback?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand that the plumbing association and the national electrical contractors association are supportive.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, all the feedback you received was supportive. There was nobody who opposed it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is the advice I have.

Clause passed.

Clauses 18 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is a point of clarification, minister. The definition of electrical equipment includes home appliances, the really straightforward things like kettles, toasters and whatever else. My reading of this clause is that if there is a fire or some sort of prescribed incident, it is not really quite relevant because the authorities who dealt with it will do their reporting. However, this clause provides that if anybody is electrocuted, then they need to report. That makes great sense for the serious incidents (no problem at all), but if somebody zaps themselves with their faulty kettle or toaster, as unfortunately can happen—and let's hope everybody has RCDs in their houses to protect themselves, family, children, visitors, etc.—am I to understand, as I think this says to me, that even if somebody zaps themselves at home with their home appliance they must report it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, and for very good reason. Being zapped by your toaster could be a sign of something that is about to degrade and become worse. It is important to let people know through an education program that you should not be zapped by your toaster, you should not be zapped by your hairdryer, you should not be zapped by your TV or by your electric heater. You should not be feeling anything from this equipment, other than the purpose for which they are intended.

Let's be very clear about this: there are a lot of unnecessary deaths in households because of old faulty equipment. We need to know what it is and warn people. There could be other problems. For example, if your toaster is zapping you, why is there not an automatic shutdown occurring through the system? Is there some sort of faulty installation we do not know about? So, yes, we want to know about it.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Given that, what is the government's intention with regard to community education so that the average householder knows that they are liable for a $5,000 fine if they do not report that they got zapped by their faulty toaster?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First and foremost, that presupposes that we would prosecute them for not telling us. If, for example, and I will speculate, children were killed by playing with faulty equipment that had zapped parents, and they knew about it, and those children unnecessarily died because parents had not reported or done something with that equipment, yes, they would be liable. If a judge decided to impose a fine on them, they could.

Remember, this is not about us being big brother; this is about us trying to save people's lives. So, yes, there should be a requirement for people to report goods that are faulty. There could be warranty issues, there could be other issues, and we want to know what they are. That is our job. That is why we have the Office of the Technical Regulator. If we did not have this I suspect the question would be, 'Why don't we have this?'

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, toasters. Toasters can kill people.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The question was: what public education program is the government going to embark upon so that they know about this new legislation, so that they know that they are liable for up to a $5,000 fine? I think it would be very fair that the households of South Australia are advised that, if they do not report that they zap themselves—that is a colloquial term but that something like that happened with regard to a household appliance—they deserve to know that they are liable potentially, if the government prosecuted, for up to a $5,000 fine. How is the government going to make sure that households know about this new liability?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Obviously we inform the trades. The trades do work. They are informed about it. There is our website, our magazine. People can find out through home shows where we have a presence sometimes when we go out and talk about safety. Let's be clear. This is not a revenue measure. We cannot expiate this notice where we can issue expiation notices. This must be imposed by a court from my advice.

We cannot expiate this, we cannot expiate this notice, so it is not like a police officer issuing a fine and then you would be able to expiate it and not go through the court process. If the government decides to prosecute, you would have to have very good reasons. It would go to the appropriate DPP, or whatever the process is, and they will make a decision and then a court would oppose the fine. The reason we have those penalties in place is not to frighten mums and dads but to protect them, and I think this is a bit cute by the opposition by half.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I disagree entirely, minister. I think it is perfectly fair that the government advises South Australians of this new obligation. It does it in lots of other ways. It is not cute at all. I think people deserve to know. Householders who do not read Hansard, householders who may not get a tradesman come regularly, householders who do not go to trade shows and do not jump on government websites deserve to know that there is a new potential liability for what we would all accept, unfortunately, should not be but is an occurrence that happens in some households occasionally. So, it is not trying to be cute at all, just trying to understand if the government intends to let South Australians know about this.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So, what the opposition is asking me to do is embark on a massive government advertising campaign. When we do advertising campaigns, they say it is a waste of taxpayers' money. Now it is, 'What are you going to do to promote this to the community?' I will tell you what we will do. I will allocate a whole heap of money in the budget process for us to go out and advertise all our measures in the budget—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and talk about this proposal. It is a good exercise. There might be TV ads, maybe ads in the newspaper. We will give pamphlets to our local members of parliament to go out and distribute. I think this is all about a preventative measure. This is not about attempting to hide anything. We are in the parliament, we are openly debating these things. There are no secret votes, there are no secret bills, there are no secret laws. There are many things on our statutes that many South Australians would not be aware of. There are many policies the opposition have that almost no-one is aware of, but we do what we can through the auspices and the portals we have already in place. There is no trick here. I understand what the opposition is attempting to do. They are attempting to say that we are about to slug people if they do not ring up and report getting zapped by the toaster for $5,000. That is not true. We cannot do that, only a court can.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I did not say anything like that.

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I said nothing like that and I did not suggest you embark upon an expensive campaign.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: You were, and you are very defensive on this and that concerns me.

The CHAIR: Order! You have had four questions. Is there anything anybody else wants to ask?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, my last point is that—

The CHAIR: Well, you are up to four.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —the opposition did not suggest any of those things, did not even query the validity or the sensibility of the measure, just purely asked what the government intended to do, and we have the answer.

Clause passed.

Clauses 24 to 26 passed.

Clause 27.

Ms CHAPMAN: I just want to refer to the new powers and obligations of authorised officers. At least there are several clauses on this. Minister, whilst there has been some conversation about the access to property for the purposes of bushfire management—and I think my position is pretty clear—for the pruning work to be done, having a process where it is less than 30 days where you can have the arborist model to deal with this extra zone—no problem.

I do not actually have a problem with that. I do have a problem, and I continue to have a problem with access to property without notice and without consent for inspection purposes. I do not accept that and, so far, nothing you have said convinces me that it is justified. In relation to the authorised officers, my first question is: under the Electricity Act, how many authorised officers are there? Similarly, how many are there under the Gas Act?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Ten under the Electricity Act, I am advised, and four under the Gas Act.

Ms CHAPMAN: With their new-found powers, starting in clause 27, which relates to the opportunity to issue enforcement notices, is there any proposed increase in the number of authorised officers under either act? And, if so, how many?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there will be no increase to the numbers.

Clause passed.

Clause 28.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This clause deals with authorised officers being able to access vehicles as well as places. In our conversation—and I cannot remember whether it was on the record or above board between us when we were making our second reading speeches—you said that there are examples of why this is necessary. Could you please share some of those examples?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is pretty simple. We have no secrets, member for Stuart. I am one of your biggest champions. I think you have a big bright future in this place.

The CHAIR: Yes, it's true. Carry on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He sat up all straight. He liked that. The reason we want this power is that there have been events, fires, that have been publicised. The electricians who have carried out the work have attended, removed their work and put it in their vans and we have been unable to then access that and prosecute. Or there may have been a complaint made of faulty workmanship that could be in breach of compliance and the OTR has been contacted.

When we arrive, the van is out the front. The circuitry work or whatever work has been done has been removed, and we have no way of proving that the work was faulty. That is why we want to have the power to open vans and inspect cars: to gain evidence. I know it sounds draconian and I know it sounds excessive, but I cannot tell you the risks in place with faulty workmanship. We saw it in Queensland with the Pink Batts. You have seen it—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's true.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Faulty work—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Bragg.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Exactly. That is why the OTR wants to be able to inspect the work. In the event of a fire or some damage that has been done, if they are going there to inspect the work and see what has occurred and if the tradesmen who conducted the work are removing it, or they have removed it when we get there, or we see them leaving, or we were told that they were there half an hour ago and we find them, then we want to open their vans and have a look and get the evidence out.

That is my advice on why we want to do it. It is not because we want to kick down doors. The OTR is not armed and it is not exactly the most intimidating unit, but it carries out a very important role. I accept the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's concern for a poor small business owner, with the government being able to compel them to open their van and having the power to inspect their van. I can only imagine—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Exactly. I can understand the stress that would cause. I hate to use this expression, but I am going to use it: if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, why can the OTR not rely upon the police to do this inspection of private property?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First of all, the police triage all calls. I will give you a hypothetical scenario, remembering that this is the real world and not the world where everyone arrives on time all the time. There is a fire and police attend. People are rescued and taken out and the fire is put out and the area is sealed. It is 12 hours later—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The police leave. Remember that the police do not stay there forever. They have important work to do and so they leave. The OTR gets there in the morning and there is a van out the front with an electrician who is pulling all the wiring out—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is the next morning?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The next morning, next week, whenever it is that it is reported to the OTR. They turn up and all the wiring has been removed. Let's say it is not a fire; let's say there has been a complaint and the OTR has reason to believe that this entity has done faulty work previously and they want to inspect the premises. The people who have done the work know that the OTR is on its way with its flashing orange lights. They arrive there and the tradesman is packing up. We cannot open their vans to get out the faulty wiring or the substandard copper or substandard switches. We cannot prosecute, and they get away with it and do it again somewhere else.

The next time we cannot be there and a fire is caused and someone gets hurt. That is why we want to do it. Can we call the police? As the police triage these things, OTR is not going to call 000 or call the police attendance line. We have no power to keep them there. They can leave. Once they leave, they can go somewhere and we are not going to follow them. This is all about being sensible in the real world.

We get there and say, 'Open the van. I'm instructing you under this section of the act to open it.' If they refuse to, that is grounds for us to take it to the court afterwards and say, 'We believe that this operator, this electrician did this work. They removed it. We attended. We caught them on the premises. They wouldn't open their van. The work was missing. We issued them a lawful order and they didn't open.' That is what they were attempting to do. However, I understand your concerns because small business owners have enough red tape as it is without the government kicking in their doors, but this will be used on very rare occasions.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Would the OTR have the power to stop moving vehicles under this clause?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We do not have that power. I suspect we do not have the power to pull cars over in traffic, but I will check between the houses and let you know.

Ms CHAPMAN: While we are on cars, I ask this question because in the second reading speech you made to the house you said, on page 1:

Authorised officers are granted further powers under the Acts, including the power to stop and inspect vehicles, to require infrastructure, installations…

and so on. We will come back to that in a minute, under clause 29. However, on the vehicle itself, just so I understand it, whilst we are adding in not just the premises but a vehicle as well for the reasons you say are necessary, let's go back to the authorised officers themselves. Do they have any training and, if so, what is it? Do they carry a weapon of any kind?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are experts in their field, whether it is gas or electricity but, no, they do not carry weapons and, no, they are not trained in combat or any other form of personal security. They are electricians and engineers who understand the appropriate works that should be put in place. They are like any other government inspectorate, whether it is a mines inspector or a health inspector. The OTR is no different. The power to stop, I imagine, is to stop someone from leaving, but I will check if we can pull someone over in traffic, which I think is a different question.

Ms CHAPMAN: It says it includes the power to stop and inspect vehicles and that is why I specifically suggested that because that is a little unusual. It is obviously when we have authorised officers and there are lots of situations, such as health inspectors going into restaurants to check that the kitchen is clean, that there are no cockroaches and that the toilet rolls are changed, all those things. They have certain powers of access and inspection. They give notices, and they give advice, cautions, etc. They can report matters which may result in there being prosecutions if there has been a failure to comply—in that instance, with health standards.

The stopping of a motor vehicle, to the best of my knowledge, is available only to a police officer, and in certain circumstances they can do it without cause. Obviously, in emergency situations there are certain emergency services that have the power to put up roadblocks, etc. I have not seen this in what I would call the 'inspector's regime', that is, the people who are there, in this instance, to deal with the safe installation and operation of gas and electrical supplies and, obviously, the equipment that goes with that for the purpose of offering that service.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is a slight nuance here between the police and the OTR. If I can be so bold as to say that when I say that our intention in the legislation, and I completely understand if you say that the intent does not match the clause—

Ms Chapman: Or what you say.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What I say? When we say 'stop a vehicle', we mean, 'Don't leave this site. Don't put the vehicle into motion. Open the door.' If they decide to do so, we are not authorised to detain them, unlike the police. We cannot arrest people. We cannot stop them.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: You can call the police.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We will call the police, but that would have an impact and a bearing in a later consideration in another place if that person decided not to, given that the officer is legally authorised to do so.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will come to this in new section 69, general powers, under subparagraph (i) 'give directions with respect to the stopping or movement of a vehicle'. There is a consequence further on in the act which attracts a very significant fine by breaching a direction by an authorised officer, so there is a punitive response to disobeying that, 'Stop that vehicle, let me have a look in your boot,' any of these things can attract a noncompliance penalty through that process.

In any event, you have answered the next issue; that is, there is no power to actually physically stop the vehicle or the person. However, if they do and they take possession of it, of course, under the rest of the provisions, under subclause (2) they have all sorts of powers to keep it basically for as long as they like. It is fairly extensive and it certainly has been extended, but I will come back to that when we deal with clause 29.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member is absolutely right. They do have extensive powers and for good reason. The good reason is that there are people out there who should not be working as electricians or should not be working as gasfitters. They should not be conducting this work. They are a menace and they are dangerous and they should be stopped. The reason we have the OTR and the good works that they do is to protect South Australians. Sometimes, you need to have punitive measures in place for people who continually disobey the standards we expect in installation in our homes and in our businesses because the public value making people safe. That is what the public would expect of us.

I will pose the question this way. If I asked the average South Australian if they thought the Office of the Technical Regulator should have the power to inspect an electrician's van if they conducted work at a house that had burnt down, I think most South Australians would say, 'Yes, of course they should.' Should the Office of the Technical Regulator have the power to stop that van from leaving a site where there was a fire, if all the incriminating evidence has been removed? Should they have the power to stop that van? I think most South Australians would say, 'Yes, they should.' I think they should, absolutely. I think I would win this debate with you in public. Probably not in the Law Society, but out with the punters I think I would win this argument.

I think if I went one step further and said, 'Do you think that if an electrician and his or her van left the site of a burnt house and took the wiring with them there should be a fine in place for not obeying the orders of the OTR?' South Australians would overwhelmingly agree with me that they should, and I think the majority of members opposite agree with me also.

Clause passed.

Clause 29.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is the replacement section 69, which obviously gives much more extensive powers to these authorised officers. I would have to say that on viewing the current section 69 it is very extensive already, and frankly I think it is enough. The minister has suggested that it is necessary to be able to deal with vehicles. You say that is necessary. Personally, I do not see that as necessary. I think it is reasonable, as the power already is there, to be able to investigate if there have been certain standards, qualifications, calls for identification, particulars of qualifications, all those. That is quite normal and necessary, and I do not have an issue with that.

I can even live with the authorised officers issuing these notices giving an obligation, which I assume at the moment the actual Technical Regulator themselves has to issue, so you are delegating that responsibility to them. They are on site. They see that there has been a deficiency in a certain standard and they can issue that notice. They can already investigate all the suspected interferences or electrical accidents, all those things. They take that information away, and they presumably refer it to the police if they think there has been a breach of the law, and obviously back to their boss, the OTR, to consider whether a fine is to be issued for breach under the particular acts we are talking about. They have very extensive powers now.

What I was not quite sure of was why it is necessary, apart from an identification, which I think is already provided under 'investigate a suspected electrical accident' and 'examine and test', to give them now a capacity to require them to say who they are and require them to attend for interview and answer questions. With due respect, minister, that is not the role of the authorised officer. They are not to be the interrogation team.

You chaps can roll your eyes as much as you like over there, but the reality is that this is not the role of an authorised officer. An authorised officer, obviously for the safety reasons in the act (and I support those), has a role, but where there has been an identified problem in whichever of these categories already under section 69, they are matters which I suggest should go to the police. It is not acceptable that these people become authorised to do anything other than what they are currently doing.

If there is a persuasive case, as I say, to allow them to issue enforcement notices, that is probably sensible. I do not disagree with that, but these people are not here to stop, search, interrogate, demand, question and the like. That is a process which should be lawfully applied by the people who are legally trained to do it, and they are police officers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First and foremost, I apologise to the deputy leader if anyone rolled their eyes at her. That is completely inappropriate. That is inappropriate behaviour for the deputy leader, especially on her birthday. Secondly, I think I may have inadvertently given the house information that is not correct. The OTR does have the power to expiate some notices.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Under this clause. I was talking about a previous clause. I do not want there to be any confusion in the house. In terms of the ability for the OTR to question people and attend simply to ask technical questions, remember that it will be the OTR that will be the prosecuting agents, not the police. But I suppose your question is: are they appropriately trained to interrogate people? I think we would be asking technical questions about work being done, not asking them to incriminate themselves.

They obviously have representation in place. What we are attempting to do is have the experts in the field ask the technical questions about work being done and, if they feel there has been a deliberate case to answer, the prosecutions will emanate from the OTR. They are the prosecuting body. They are the ones who will recommend prosecutions, not the police. These are not necessarily criminal acts.

Ms Chapman: Yes, they are. They are $20,000 offences.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Some, yes, but this is the OTR making the assessments about whether they should prosecute because they are the ones who have the knowledge about whether there have been breaches. I suppose, between the houses, if the opposition has amendments they want me to consider to satisfy themselves that we are not exceeding what you may think good legal principles are, I am happy to consider them.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the absence of there being any specific need to increase beyond what is in section 69—I hear what you are saying on vehicles. I do not agree with it, but it seems clear that you are intent on doing it. But to actually have an obligation added in here under the new section 69, which is:

A person who—

(a) having been asked a question under this section, does not answer the question to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief; or

(b) refuses or fails to comply with a requirement or direction...or

(c) being the person in charge of a place or vehicle subject to an inspection...

These can all result in being guilty of an offence and a $20,000 fine. Whilst I appreciate that the authorised officer will go back to the head office and give a report to the OTR and say, 'This is the situation. He was difficult. He wouldn't answer questions,' and so on, it may be a matter on which the OTR makes a determination about whether or not proceedings are issued in the District Court or one of the other courts I think they are now allocated to: the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court. I am not quite sure why it is not going to SACAT; that is what we have that court for, but in any event he is going to be making that determination, not the authorised officer.

At this stage, what you are doing is expanding section 69 quite comprehensively to enable there to be an interrogation. There are some exemptions under self-incrimination, which is the usual clause. It usually goes too far in my view, but essentially it does allow for the obligation to answer, and if there is information that is received in those circumstances, there can be restrictions on its access to be able to be used in other proceedings. I hear all that. To me, it is the wrong way around, but it is common in this government's approach to these matters.

I cannot see at this stage a justification for an extension of power of the authorised officers. As I say, I can see that you are fixed on extending it to a vehicle. I think we have no chance of stopping a vehicle, but what you are saying is that you want the authorised officer to be able to walk out into the street and say, 'I want to have a look in the back of your van.' If they do not, then of course they can be subject to a fine, let alone any other prosecution for flogging a copper wire out of the front garden of someone's house or whatever else they might have done.

I personally see this whole bill as one which is all about these authorised officers. The issue about cutting down trees or accessing property for inspection is really only a minor part of this bill. This is a serious cranking up of authorised officers' powers. Apparently there is not going to be any more of them, but whatever extra training they are going to get, who knows. I expect that will come at a cost.

Secondly, it is a consolidation of area of responsibility. I see that there are two regulators in this field: one is the Technical Regulator and the other is the ESCOSA commissioner. They have different roles and I appreciate there is some adjustment on changing of those roles. I am not going to hold the house up with the detail on that because I think the shadow minister has covered that.

These bills come in to us replete with opportunity or expectation that there is going to be a new army of enforcers in these departments. That is exactly what they are and every time we have this fight. In principle, we say that the enforcement of breaches of the law or of standards and obligations in relation to that ought to be with police officers. You can certainly have authorised officers to collate material and I do not have a problem with that, but they do not need all these powers. Next thing, they will be asking for a pay rise.

The CHAIR: Was that a question?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a very good question.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First and foremost, this is a dramatic shift in policy by the opposition as announced by the deputy leader. The powers that she claims are unprecedented already exist for the Environment Protection Authority, not police officers. The only new clause that is not in other statutes for other similar bodies is 'require a person, by written notice served on the person, to attend at a specified time and place'. The rest of the powers we want to give the OTR are the same powers that the EPA has.

If I am to surmise this correctly, what the opposition is saying is that the shadow attorney-general and deputy leader are not going to accept these provisions. Therefore, there would be a massive reworking of the Environment Protection Act as well if they were to win office in 2018, dramatically weakening our environmental protection powers. Given the statements made by the shadow minister about Clovelly Park, that will be very interesting to those—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Not the member for Stuart, the deputy leader—residents there and, of course, other areas that she has agitated upon with pollution. Are these powers new? Do they exist in other statutes? Yes. As I said, I am prepared to compromise with the opposition, but to say that these powers are extraordinary and not already in practice is simply not accurate. I am not sure whether the deputy leader was aware that the EPA had similar provisions in its act to compel people to do these sorts of things.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Bragg!

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you? I apologise then.

The CHAIR: Deputy leader.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's all very friendly.

The CHAIR: It is not, and the Chair is not very happy if we are going to keep having these interjections and asides.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's all part of the cut and thrust.

The CHAIR: No, it's not. It is 6 o'clock and everyone has better things to do.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The beauty and majesty of democracy.

The CHAIR: Let's just move on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So I do not agree with her and, yes, I do want these officers to have these powers. Yes, I do want these fines in place. Yes, I think they are very, very important. Why? People's lives are at stake. Again, I do not mean to frustrate the opposition, other than to say that the government considers these to be important powers and we would very much like the opposition's support in the other place. I am prepared to consider a compromise to proposed section 69(1)(l), which provides 'require a person, by written notice served on the person, to attend at a specified time and place'.

If the opposition can come up with some other way in which we can require people to attend the OTR and have discussions about the work they have carried out, I am up for it, but these powers are not unique to the OTR. These powers are quite common in inspectorates such as health, but mainly EPA, which is where the OTR have got these requirements from. I think we are really arguing about not very much. These powers are not unprecedented. We are not tearing up the Magna Carta, we are not kicking over people's personal rights: we are trying to protect people and we are doing so in a way we think is appropriate and fair.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, am I to understand from all of this debate that the government and the regulator believe that the authorised officers need this extra power because it is inefficient or there would not be enough time or police might be busy with other jobs, so they cannot rely upon the police to do exactly what they would want at this point in time? That may well be for a range of very good reasons, but they want this power for the authorised officers because they cannot rely upon the police but, if the person in question does not follow the directions of the authorised officer, the authorised officer will call the police.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are talking about a lot of hypotheticals here but, yes, we do believe they need these powers. Why? Because of long, hard experiences of dealing day-to-day with people who, quite frankly, are recalcitrant, do not change their behaviour and put South Australians at risk.

If someone does not attend at a time and place, we are not going to call the police and have them arrested: we are going to take it to the courts and seek to have it enforced there and have the court interpret whether or not they should attend or whether or not they have a case to answer. This is all about building a case to protect people by getting people who are doing dodgy work, putting people at risk, out of the industry.

Yes, there is a deterring impact here and so there should be because I can tell you, as a father of two girls, my biggest nightmare is a fire in the house and I cannot get to the girls. I have seen far too many reports from the OTR of cases of neglect, poor workmanship or poor installation of equipment that has led to unnecessary fire, risk and sometimes death.

So, is the deterrent large? Yes, it is. Are the fines large? Absolutely, you bet they are. Do we want to stop this work? Yes, we do. I really would like the opposition's cooperation on this but, at the same time, I have a great deal of respect for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She is a well-respected lawyer in this city and state and, if she has views about how we obtain this information—I do not think police are the appropriate avenue—there must be a compromise we can reach between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clauses 30 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, this is about the expiation notices which are introduced throughout the bill. It says that the people who could give an expiation notice are:

(a) any authorised officer authorised in writing by the Technical Regulator;

(b) any electricity officer authorised in writing by the Technical Regulator.

These are the 10 that you referred to before, in terms of authorised officers on the electricity side. Is there any intention to increase the number of authorised officers?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No.

Clause passed.

Clauses 40 to 48 passed.

Clause 49.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can the minister just explain to me why it is necessary to have the minister's power to require information or documents? We have the regulators, we have the authorised officers, so why do you need it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why should I miss out? I will find out. I am advised the provision as presently worded may make it difficult for the minister to require gas entities to provide all the information that is needed in the event of gas rationing. The amendments will enable the minister to require particular information to be provided, not only in response to particular requests but also from time to time or on an ongoing basis. The minister will be able to ask in advance for reports on the quantity of gas available on each day. It is a strategic reason.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (50 to 78) and title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (18:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (18:05): I just have a very brief third reading speech. Let me just wind up by saying that the opposition understands and is supportive in principle of making South Australia a safer place. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. The opposition also values the work of the OTR towards that, and has no hesitation about supporting the government in that in principle.

We are very cautious about anything that might increase the cost to consumers. We are also very cautious about anything that might unfairly or unnecessarily diminish people's existing rights. The issues that we have dealt with in the most detail have been those that did not exist before about access to land and access to vehicles, and extra authorities given to authorised officers. Those are issues that we take very seriously. I expect we will take up the minister's offer to come back with some amendments on those areas. We will do that between the houses and see how debate proceeds in the other place.

The last thing I would like to say is that all the questions that were asked by the opposition during the committee stage were about the clauses directly relating to electricity. It is not because we did not think about the gas or that we do not value the same principles with regard to the gas. It is because the part of the bill relating to gas is very similar to that relating to electricity. Given that most of our concerns are about the principles, there was no need to go through and ask twice as many questions or the same questions all over again.

The key difference that I picked up in my reading between the electricity part of the bill and the gas part of the bill was with regard to rationing and the provision of information to the regulator and to the government at times of gas rationing. As I said in my second reading speech, I think that that is actually quite a fair principle. When you are in a difficult situation for whatever reason, and you are down to the gas rationing stage, everybody in a position of responsibility needs access to as much information as possible.

With that, I conclude my remarks. I thank the minister's advisers, who are always friendly, available and willing to advise me. I also thank, as always, my staff member Mr Chris Hanna, who does an outstanding job supporting me in these matters.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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