HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIONAL ELECTRICITY (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) (NATIONAL ELECTRICITY LAW—AUSTRALIAN ENERGY MARKET OPERATOR) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2009. Page 2550.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (19:48): As other members have done in addressing the three pieces of related legislation, I intend to speak to this particular bill, but my comments generally cover the three pieces of legislation. We have had the opportunity on a number of occasions to express our views on the development of the national electricity market and related issues. For those avid readers of Hansard, my contribution was last made on 23 October 2007, and then, prior to that, on 5 April 2005, in relation to some of the many issues that are raised in relation to the establishment of the market, some of the teething problems along the way, the teething problems that continue, and the results which we see with further legislation again in the parliament at the moment.

I do not intend to repeat all the views I expressed on those two previous occasions. I want to summarise briefly only two issues. The first is by way of rebuttal to statements made by the Minister for Energy in another place. The first point is—and it is sometimes repeated by the minister in this chamber and other members—that the principles of the national electricity market were agreed between a state Labor premier and a federal Labor prime minister in 1993.

It is often misreported by the Leader of the Government and the Minister for Energy that it was the former Liberal government that established the national electricity market. Certainly, the former state Liberal government and the former federal Liberal government did many of the hard metres in relation to the establishment of the market, but the original COAG agreements and principles were established between the then premier Lynn Arnold and I suspect prime minister Keating, but a federal Labor prime minister.

The point is that the origins of the national electricity market started with Labor governments. They were supported at the time by Liberal governments; were further implemented by Liberal governments over the next eight or nine years; and have continued to be implemented by the current state Labor government and the federal Labor government as well. Both of the major parties at state and federal level have implemented the national electricity market reforms.

The second point concerns one of the ongoing debates in relation to the national electricity market and the issue of private ownership or government ownership, which, of course, was a controversial issue under the former state Liberal government in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, when the state Liberal government, supported by some key Labor members of parliament (who were then expelled from the party), passed legislation through both houses of parliament.

We said at the time that the issues of private operation and ownership of the major electricity entities would be the way of the future and, of course, Victoria predated South Australia. Most recently, in the budgets and policy decisions of both Queensland and New South Wales, we have seen the governments in both those jurisdictions proceeding inexorably down the path of privatisation to the extent that they can get support from their caucuses and their communities. Their models are slightly different; nevertheless, the direction is quite clear.

What is driving this is one of the reasons we gave when we had this debate, namely, that the whole notion of a national electricity market, which was supported by both the Labor and Liberal parties, the notion of having government owned and operated businesses operating in the national electricity market, was not a good recipe for success for taxpayers, and I guess that was the point of view put simply by the former Liberal government and those who supported those policies.

Without recounting all the debate, I will read a statement which was made by the current minister and which I quoted in my 2007 contribution. During the estimates committees in the House of Assembly in 2007, minister Conlon indicated that one of the reasons the private sector operators were not putting money into generation was the absence of greenhouse policy. He went on to argue, as follows:

What they do not know is what that cost will be and when it will be incurred. You would have to build $2 billion worth of plant, not knowing over the lifetime of the plant what the significant increased cost would be and when you will incur it. That means that no-one is building new coal burning plants, except possibly the Queensland government, which has the benefit of owning its assets and can take the risk that a business would not.

There in one sentence is exactly the reason that you would never want to leave a minister of government, such as minister Conlon or any other Labor minister, in charge of electricity businesses. What minister Conlon was saying was that private sector people would not put the sort of money into building coal fired generation plant at the moment because of the concerns at that time (which still continue) in relation to greenhouse gas policies. However, he also said that, if you had a government owned asset, the government might make those non-commercial decisions and take the risk because it was taxpayers' money they were risking. In essence, if the taxpayers lose the money, it is no skin off the nose of the Labor minister.

That was the view minister Conlon put just over 18 months ago when we debated this issue at that time. As we look at it two years down the track, we are in exactly the same position: we still do not have resolution of the emissions trading policies of the federal government. People are trying to invest in generation assets to participate in electricity businesses, not knowing what the policy framework will be for those electricity businesses in the current environment.

I guess that you will never get an answer from minister Conlon, Treasurer of Foley or Premier Rann on this issue, but I say to them: just talk to someone in the electricity market and ask how much the electricity generating business in the Port Augusta area would get on the open market if it were being privatised as we speak in 2009. Of course, the answer would be: in the current climate, very little, if anything at all, in relation to the value of those businesses.

That is what governments in other jurisdictions—that is, in New South Wales and Queensland—are already finding. As they look to go to market for some of their generation assets, they are finding a considerable reluctance from bidders (a) because of the value and (b) because they are not aware of what the policy framework will be. Of course, as we said at the time, that would be one of the risks of owning and operating an asset in the national electricity market, and the view put by the then Labor opposition (now Labor government) was that it did not accept that argument.

As I said, those are the two issues I wanted to revisit from the broad policy debate we had in 2005 and 2007. Having read my contributions on those occasions, I do not resile from them. I am always happy to enter into a debate with the government ministers on the issues, if they so choose.

The legislation before us moves to the next step of the national electricity market development and the establishment of a new body with the unfortunate acronym of AEMO (the Australian Energy Market Operator). Mr President, I am sure you are aware that emos are the very unhappy looking people one sees in the CBD wearing black clothes, white foundation and red lipstick. Their music love is a derivative of hard-core punk, and they are generally not happy with their life. That acronym—AEMO—has been chosen by minister Conlon and his confreres for the new regulatory body that is to be established.

When one cuts through all this legislation, in recent times one of the arguments of Labor ministers, both federal and state, and also of the former federal Liberal minister, has been that, 'We,' being the jurisdictions, 'are going to deliver a significant reduction in the number of regulatory authorities'.

I sort of revisited that point in the last debate. However, when one looks at it now, AEMO will replace the old body, the National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMMCO), but the other Australian regulatory body, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), will continue. We understand that ESCOSA, which is the South Australian-based industry regulator, is going to continue, but we will obviously pursue that during the committee stage of the debate. The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) will continue, and there is an ongoing role for the ACCC, albeit I think a slightly reduced role, and various other bodies will continue at the national level. I understand the state-based regulators in the other states will continue to operate.

Really, the only change in this is that ESIPC is to be absorbed, I suppose. ESIPC is a South Australian organisation rather than a national organisation, and I will express views on the proposed removal of the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council from the planning framework.

So, all of those bodies will continue to operate. We are really looking at this new body AEMO, which, according to the second reading explanation, will take on a variety of new functions from a number of other bodies in the other states but, in relation to South Australia, the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council.

The second reading explanation indicates that, for the first time, an important part of the reform will be that government members will retain 60 per cent of the voting rights of the not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, and industry members will have the remaining 40 per cent of voting rights, with these arrangements subject to review after three years. Can the government indicate what the proposed mechanism will be to fill the 60 per cent of voting rights issue for AEMO and the 40 per cent for industry members? For example, how will industry members be either elected or nominated? What is the proposed process for the 40 per cent right block, and what will be the structure in relation to how the government 60 per cent voting right block will operate? Subject to the answers to those questions, there may be a series of further questions during the committee stage.

In relation to the arrangements being subject to review after three years, can the minister indicate what body has been authorised to conduct that review of the arrangements after three years? Is it to be the Ministerial Council on Energy, or will some other body conduct the review? Will it be a review of the 60 per cent and 40 per cent issue, or will it be a review of AEMO more generally? Could that review result in the industry membership being removed or reduced, or is it only to either confirm the 40 per cent industry membership or the possible increase of the voting block for industry members in terms of the management of AEMO?

On the second page of the second reading explanation, there is a sentence about which I seek clarification. It states:

As was highlighted in the MCE response, the NTP's independent, strategic view of the network will add value to the regulatory test assessments and the AER's revenue resets for Transmission Network Service Providers...This is because AEMO's ability to make submissions will assist in ensuring that local network investments complement the broader strategic direction of the network.

Can the minister clarify exactly what is meant by 'AEMO's ability to make submissions'? Is this AEMO making submissions to the AER in relation to regulatory test assessments and the AER's revenue resets for transmission network service providers; that is, will AEMO be making submissions to the AER on those issues, or does it refer in some way to AEMO's ability to make submissions to other regulatory bodies or agencies?

The second reading explanation goes on to indicate that the NTNDP (National Transmission Network Development Plan) must be published no later than 31 December each year. Can the minister indicate whether the first of those NTNDPs is intended to be approved and authorised by 31 December 2009 for the coming year 2010? My understanding from the second reading explanation is that the first publication is to be no later than 31 December 2010. So, I assume that it is for the 2010 year.

The second reading explanation goes on to refer to the establishment of regional offices of AEMO. Can the minister outline what are the agreements the governments have entered into in relation to regional offices of AEMO, in particular, the decision-making authority? What will be the level of the most senior officer for any AEMO office, which I understand is to be established in Adelaide? What staffing and resources are intended to be made available for AEMO?

The second reading explanation goes on to say that AEMO will also take responsibility for the planning functions currently performed by the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council. As did some of my colleagues in the House of Assembly, I express my view that minister Conlon and the South Australian government have been sold a pup in relation to the abolition of the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council. Even minister Conlon may have had to concede through gritted teeth that the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council has been a most important body, established by the former government as part of its regulatory arrangements for the national market in South Australia. It has provided considerable advice, information and expertise in relation to future planning needs from a particular South Australian perspective or viewpoint.

Given the debate we had in the late 1990s and early 2000s, that was a most important initiative, we believed, in relation to ensuring that the electricity needs of South Australia were well protected, bearing in mind that we are obviously a small component of the national market, dominated by New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. We have been sold down the drain by minister Conlon and the government by their agreeing to get rid of the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council, its expertise and its particular South Australian focus.

I know that the government will argue, as I understand it, that AEMO and its regional office will take on the function of the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council. That is an issue we will need to explore in some detail in committee because AEMO will be a national body, even though there might be regional offices—and that will be a sop to this argument, that we will have an office here, but that office will be controlled and dictated by the national approach that AEMO will necessarily have. We will need to look at exactly what powers the South Australian minister in future will have.

Further on in the second reading explanation it says that AEMO will have a specific role in providing information to the South Australian government to assist in the management of the energy sector. We are being asked to accept that AEMO, a national body looking at things from the national electricity perspective, will be asked by minister Conlon at the moment (or a future South Australian energy minister) to take off that hat and give us advice in relation to the management of the energy sector in South Australia. The inevitability of this is that a body, which will start with a national focus and take on more of a national focus in terms of national regulatory arrangements, will inevitably tailor its advice to the South Australian government with the view of the national regulatory arrangements at the forefront.

The minister will argue that he can ask this body to take over the role of ESIPC and provide advice to the South Australian government in terms of how we manage it, but ESIPC is there with a particular South Australian focus. It provides independent advice and does not always necessarily agree with the views of the South Australian government at the time. It has operated compatibly, sympathetically and without any rancour over the period of its existence with the Labor government, but it has been a body of expertise in relation to medium and long-term planning issues, which are important in relation to South Australia's future.

Whilst we are all supporting a national electricity market (Labor and Liberal are supporting such a market), there is nothing wrong within the context of that market with having a particular body with expertise and a focus of looking after our best interests and providing us with advice with our best interests in mind, providing us with advice, as we go off to the ministerial council or to national bodies, in relation to the particular South Australian focus that might be best for South Australia in the national electricity market.

Inevitably with a national market we have to accept compromises. There will be some decisions that will not be in the best interests of South Australia because the greater being of the market and the eastern states will outweigh the benefit or loss to South Australia on a particular decision. Inevitably with a national market we will have to accept that that might be the case, but at least with bodies like ESIPC, and with the expertise that might be available within the various government departments working within this area, we have the capacity to have a particular South Australian focus.

The die has been cast, the deals have been done and South Australians have been sold down the drain in relation to this aspect of the decision. Further down the track we will look back and lament the loss of ESIPC. I hasten to say, in concluding my remarks on ESIPC, that there is nothing that I see—and I challenge the government and its advisers to put it to me—that requires us to get rid of ESIPC. Certainly, it was desired (as were all of those sorts of things), but there is nothing that I can see that would have prevented our agreeing to AEMO and what is essentially in this legislation and having a continued ESIPC, maybe with slightly refined terms of reference as a result of the establishment of AEMO (and I accept that there may well have to be some revision in relation to that).

Certainly, in relation to its role in providing advice to the South Australian government and the community and those sorts of issues, and looking after South Australia's interests, there is nothing in the national agreements that I can see that requires us to get rid of ESIPC. This has been a decision that minister Conlon, Premier Rann and the government have taken to sell our interests down the drain in relation to the national electricity market. As I said, I think that further down the track we will lament the loss in this area.

The second reading explanation goes on to state that AEMO's revenue for its Victorian TNSP function is not subject to approval by the AER. I found that a curious reference, and I have asked the minister to clarify exactly what is meant by that and what is the reason for the fact that it is not subject to approval by the AER. Is it not the case that, in relation to the other states in the national market, the equivalent decisions will be subject to approval by the AER? If that is the case, why is Victoria being treated differently from South Australia and the other states in the national electricity market when these arrangements are in the legislation?

There are some issues in relation to the requirements for gathering information. That is referred to in the second reading, but I will come back to it later in my contribution. It relates to what is known as MIOs and MINs. There are so many acronyms in this area and, for the benefit of Hansard, I will try to find exactly what it means (I think it is a ministerial information order, or something like that). It is an MIO and an MIN issuing power for the new body AEMO. I will come back to the other aspects of the second reading later in my contribution.

In relation to the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council, again, there was another aspect about which I wanted to seek information from the minister, and that was in relation to the issue of load shedding, which was the subject of some debate in the House of Assembly. I think the member for MacKillop raised some questions in relation to load shedding, and minister Conlon said that the government had sought from NEMMCO a report on load shedding. He then referred to what he described as a fairly pointless debate about a list of information held by ESIPC instituted by the previous government: 'From memory, it was no more than a list of feeders'.

That was the debate we had in recent times when, I think, The Advertiser and other sections of the media were running the line of wanting to know, when there was load shedding, whether or not the public should know which suburbs would next be cut off as part of the load shedding arrangement. I think the minister and the government indicated that they were supportive of releasing that information but, in the end, they did nothing about it.

ESIPC was a part of that, so I seek from the government an explanation of what the current arrangements are in relation to load shedding and the public release of information about which suburbs will next be cut off and for how long and, if the government is now going to get rid of the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council, how that will be changed. AEMO takes over the function of the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council, but I understand that, in relation to this issue of load shedding, there is to be a role for the South Australian Technical Regulator.

If my understanding is correct, I ask the minister to outline what, if any, role the Technical Regulator has at the moment in relation to load shedding and, under the new arrangements, what the role is intended to be and, if this legislation is passed, if the Technical Regulator is to take over the responsibility for this, what is the technical position in relation to the releasing of the information that the minister recently said he was quite happy to release publicly in relation to load shedding?

If we move to this new framework, will the Technical Regulator be releasing this information, whose decision will it be whether or not this information is to be released and, importantly, does the minister in South Australia have directive capacity over the Technical Regulator in relation to the release of this information?

I am not talking about the other aspects of the work of the Technical Regulator but, if the Technical Regulator is to have a role in relation to this load shedding function, will the Minister for Energy in South Australia have any directive power or function over the Technical Regulator in relation to the release of load shedding information? Given the recent public focus on that, I forewarn the minister that it is an issue that I intend to pursue in the committee stage, subject to the answers that the minister provides.

The next issue I want to raise relates to the relationship between the Ministerial Council on Energy and the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC). When we considered this matter in 2007, we had a long debate about the statement of policy principles by the MCE. To cut that long debate short, essentially the government's position was that the MCE could issue a statement of policy principles but that the Australian Energy Market Commission could, in essence, ignore the views of the politicians on the Ministerial Council on Energy. So, the AEMC had to consider the views of the ministerial council but, ultimately, it was supremely independent. It could disagree, and all it had to do was publish the reasons for its decision.

My questions to the minister are: in the past couple of years, have there been any examples where the Ministerial Council on Energy has issued a statement of policy principles which the AEMC has considered and chosen to disagree with, publishing its reasons? I also want to follow up on the 2007 debate on the issue of nodes within the electricity market. For example, the state of Queensland might have been divided up into two or three nodes rather than being treated as a state in relation to transmission network policies. The minister said that this was an issue that was still being discussed. I note that it was being discussed when I was minister 10 years ago.

Can the minister indicate whether or not there has been any progress at the ministerial council level or at any regulatory authority level in relation to the introduction of nodes in the policy framework of the national electricity market? Also in relation to that, I note that, in the 2007 debate, I made reference to the release of a statement in early 2007, I think, by the Essential Services Commission of South Australia, indicating that it had done an analysis of electricity prices for households in South Australia's electricity market in 2007 compared to the start of the competitive market in South Australia. The independent regulator had reported that prices, in real terms, were essentially the same as they had been at the start of competition in South Australia.

Can the government advisers give me a reference to that analysis—on one of the websites or in one of the many reports of the Essential Services Commission—in 2007? More importantly, are the government's advisers aware of a similar analysis done for 2008 or 2009, by either the independent regulator of the Essential Services Commission, or by the government's own advisers, in relation to the impact on the average residential household of the cost of electricity in 2008 or 2009 compared to the start of the competitive market? When I come to some of the other issues—the issue of retail pricing in particular—that information will be an important part of the debate.

One of the issues that we have debated every time—and we will obviously debate it this time—is the never-ending tranches of legislation that we see for the introduction of the national electricity market. When we debated this matter in 2007, we were told that there would be another tranche of legislation to come through in relation to the retail sector. We did the transmission tranche in 2005 and we did the distribution tranche in 2007, and we were told during that debate that we would see the retail sector tranche of legislation some time in 2008. Well, we did not see that tranche of legislation in 2008 and, so far, we have not seen it in 2009, unless it is well hidden in this particular package of legislation.

So, my question to the minister is: when is it intended that we will see the next tranche of national electricity market legislation relating to the critical retail sector? I assume that we will not see it this year and therefore we will not see it prior to the 2010 election. Does that therefore mean that the South Australian parliament will not consider the retail sector tranche of legislation until mid 2010, at the very earliest?

That is obviously a critical part of the whole debate about the national electricity market. I remind the minister that, during the debate in 2007, I placed on the public record aspects of the intergovernmental agreement that the South Australian government had entered into with the commonwealth government and all other states. We had a copy of that, which was tabled during that particular debate. It was an agreement signed by the Premier of South Australia on our behalf. I think he signed it some time in May 2006, straight after the last state election. The agreement states:

The parties reaffirm their commitment to full retail contestability in accordance with the national competition policy agreements.

Further on, clause 14.11 of this agreement states:

All parties agree to phase out the exercise of retail price regulation for electricity and natural gas where effective retail competition can be demonstrated and that:

(a) the AEMC will assess the effectiveness of competition for the purpose of retention, removal or reintroduction of retail energy price controls, whereby:

(i) the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of competition will be developed by the MCE in consultation with the AEMC and other interested parties based on the principles set out in Annexure 3;

(ii) the assessment process will commence from 1 January 2007 starting with those jurisdictions most likely to have effective competition; and

(iii) reviews will be conducted biennially, unless the AEMC recommends otherwise, until all retail energy price controls are phased out or at the request of a party thereafter;

There are various other aspects of the price regulation in that clause, but I will not read them all.

That agreement was signed on behalf of South Australia by Premier Rann on 10 May 2006. In essence, what the South Australian government signed up to said that South Australia will commit to full retail contestability and will give up retail price regulation—that is, retail price caps—in the South Australian market where effective retail competition can be demonstrated.

I understand that the AEMC has conducted its report. We were told in 2007 that the AEMC final report on the South Australian review would be due in December 2008 and that the South Australian government had to provide a public response to the AEMC's advice within six months of receiving that final report. If it is correct that the AEMC's final report was produced by December 2008, then by the end of this month the South Australian government has to provide a public response to that advice. So I ask the government: was that AEMC report produced in December 2008? If it was not, when was it produced, and when is the South Australian government's response due?

My understanding is that the AEMC report said (as I predicted in 2007) that there was effective retail competition in the South Australian market; they said that in Victoria, and I understand they have said that in relation to South Australia. Our government, our Premier, has said that if there is effective price competition then it will get rid of retail price controls on electricity. Now, I do not think there is any doubt that one of the reasons we are seeing the delay in the legislation is that the government does not want to make that decision prior to 2010; it would probably want to leave that decision for an incoming government to make after March 2010 or, should it be re-elected, it would be a decision the government would take straight after an election with four years to absorb any political heat that might ensue.

This is a critical part of this whole debate, as it was in 2005. At that time, and again in 2007, we had a long debate about various conflicting statements made by minister Conlon in the Sunday Mail and also in the parliament regarding this state government's policy. I am sure the minister in this council will be disappointed if we do not revisit this issue in 2009 during the committee stage to find out exactly what is the position of his government in relation to that important issue.

There is obviously some flow on from the debate in 2007 because we are told that we will have an AEMO office here in South Australia. In 2007 we were told that some of the staff from ESCOSA would go across to the AER, and I seek confirmation from the minister as to the number of staff and resources that went from ESCOSA to the AER office here in Adelaide. The commitments we were given in 2007 about how we would have a viable local office of the AER in South Australia impact on how we make judgments about commitments that the government makes regarding having a local office of AEMO, in relation to this particular legislation, as well as the office, staffing and resources arrangements for any regional office of AEMO in South Australia.

The next issue relates to the reserve trader arrangements in the national electricity market. In House of Assembly debate, the minister flagged an issue that I and others had been discussing—and, obviously, that he had been discussing in more important fora—in relation to changing the reserve trader arrangements. The minister conceded that those arrangements had not worked in the recent load shedding incident, because the decisions were taken at the start of the summer period and there was no ability, part way through that period, to move to a more flexible reserve trader arrangement. Whilst the minister has said that we should consider more flexible use of the reserve trader, I seek advice from the government, first, about what specific proposals South Australia took to the ministerial council—or any other regulatory authority—and when it did so.

One of the criticisms of the South Australian government during that last incident was that we did not have this arrangement. Certainly, if this issue had been discussed for some time at the national level, that is one thing and we had not made progress, but if the minister had not even taken up this issue at the national level prior to that particular incident, then I think criticism could validly be directed to the minister in the South Australian government; that is, they had not taken up those particular issues at the national level.

I return to the issue that I raised earlier in relation to the MIOs and the MINs that will be issued by AEMO. When one looks at the ministerial council website, what I will refer to as a discussion paper was issued in August last year, when comments from industry players were sought. They looked like they had to be submitted by September last year. When one goes through most of those submissions, one of the major criticisms made by industry players—and I will read some of them—was in relation to the market information orders (MIOs) and the market information notices (MINs).

The Energy Retailers Association of Australia, for example, in its submission said that it did not support the proposal to implement legislation that provides scope for the issue of MIOs and MINs by AEMO. As proposed, AEMO could be granted powers to issue such notices to participants which could incur penalties. It argued that this was a major deviation from the current regulatory arrangements where market operators and other participants operate under the rules and the AER enforces the rules. This submission (and others) was arguing the distinction between an operating company like AEMO and an enforcement agency like the Australian Energy Regulator (AER).

As I said, these submissions were arguing strongly against the considerable powers to direct companies and participants in the national market to provide information. This particular submission goes on to argue that the current arrangements had worked very well. Without reading all the other submissions but, referring to a number of them in brief, the Energy Networks Association of Australia makes very similar points in its submission.

The Energy Supply Association of Australia in its submission said that it has significant concerns with this approach. Regulatory information instruments are proven to be highly intrusive and onerous measures in the context of network economic regulation. ESAA submits that network member businesses are reported having to allocate substantial resources to comply with information requests, etc. It talks about the intrusive and costly nature of the use of the MIOs and MINs.

The National Generators Forum makes similar complaints about the use of the MINs and the MIOs by AEMO. A number of other submissions by individual companies similarly express concern about the use of the MIOs and the MINs. Again from the website, there seems to have been a partial response from ministers and the senior officers group. In relation to explanatory material, AEMO exposure drafts, December 2008, a document says that the ISC has considered the issues raised in submissions and has altered its proposal. AEMO will not be restricted to using MIOs and MINs to support its planning functions. There will be no ability to extend the use of the framework by a rule change.

My understanding is that most of the participants are still strongly opposed to the proposal that we still see in the legislation and that many, if not all, do not see that the supposed change by ministers and the senior officers has recognised the point they are making. I am seeking from the government exactly what is the current position in relation to energy participants in the industry. As I said, I have only been able to access the submissions from September in relation to the August proposal.

The government is saying it has made some change in the legislation that we now have before us, but, as I said, my understanding is that there is still significant opposition. I seek clarification from the minister as to whether that is the case. If it is the case, what is the government's response to the continuing significant opposition? The simple question that they are putting is: what was wrong with the current arrangements?

A number of the bodies were relying on confidential information being provided by companies to produce statement of opportunities and planning reports, etc. Certainly, these submissions are arguing that these regulatory bodies were getting information and were able to produce the planning reports that the industry obviously requires. I seek from the minister and the government: what was it that was wrong with the arrangements that existed in relation to information gathering before this particular change was proposed?

In the second reading contribution, there was a section in relation to immunities and it refers to providing immunity for contractors providing software to AEMO. Can the minister indicate what specific problems either have been experienced or are predicted possibly to occur to require this particular additional immunity to be provided in the legislation? Clearly, some issue must have been raised which required the inclusion of this new provision.

This second reading contribution is longer than normal because the minister asked that I try to put on notice as many of my committee related questions as I can so that government officers can provide some answers. In that way, we may well be able to short-circuit what is usually a lengthy committee stage. I am happy to raise as many of the questions as I can that we inevitably have on the detail of the legislation, obviously subject to the answers the government and its advisers provide.

Certainly, from our viewpoint, we want to progress the committee stage as expeditiously as possible. However, we want to place on the public record the government's answers to, positions on and defences of various policy positions it has supported in the legislation we are being asked to pass.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

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