 |
 |
|
|
ELECTRICITY CORPORATIONS (RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL
Debate on this Bill took up many hours on June 8 (adjourning at 12.05am) on June 9th, (adjourning at 12.15am) and June 10th, when the Legislative Council did not adjourn until 4.45am on Friday 11th. The Parliament eventually agreed to a 25-year lease with an option to renew to a 97-year lease of SA's electricity assets. Labor MLC Trevor Crothers quit the party, in a blaze of publicity, to support the Government Bill. Democrats Sandra Kanck and Mike Elliott were actively involved in the debates, but reproducing them here would take up too many megabytes of space. The entire transcript is available, by searching the official SA Parliament Legislative Council Hansard web site. In your search, specify the name of the Bill, or the date you require. On the Hansard site, one entire day's transcript is one large file. Alternatively, refer to the many speeches and news releases available at the Democrats' Infrastructure page. I have here reproduced Mike Elliott's speech from the final day of debate: Thursday 10 June 1999, which covers only one small aspect of this huge issue - Democrats (SA) Webmaster |
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I think it is a little too easy by half for the Treasurer to say that because the Democrats are opposed to a sale or a lease—which, effectively, is a sale—everything that we say is linked only to that position. I think there is reason for legitimate concern about this matter. I was a member of the Council when the EPA Act was enacted, and it was recognised that many industrial activities that were occurring within South Australia would not comply with that Act.
515 For that reason, we have allowed quite significant phase-in times for many industries to comply. That has been particularly true of big industries. For instance, the plant at Port Pirie discharges into the sea, even today, levels of heavy metals which one would not accept for a new plant, but we have realised that it has difficulties and that it takes time to address those; in fact, the plant has made significant progress. But, at the end of the day, there is an aim that they will reach a standard that everybody else would be expected to reach.
It is also true that the electricity plants in South Australia have significant environmental problems. Certainly, the plant at Port Augusta creates significant thermal pollution. Members might not think of heat as pollution, but it is. If you change the temperature of the marine environment, you change what will survive there. In a body of water such as the top end of the gulf, where there is very little movement, thermal pollution is a real problem. We accepted that as a price that we had to pay, but it is also something that we hope in the longer term might be addressed.
In the past, the Port Augusta plant has also been responsible for putting very large amounts of heavy metals into the top end of Spencer Gulf. In fact, Spencer Gulf cops it three ways: from Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla. No-one has suggested that any of those operations in any of those three cities should close down, but there is an expectation—and this is important—that over time they will comply with standards that will give us genuine environmental safety. I note that the Treasurer is not taking much note of this, but then I suppose he was not going to take much note anyway.
No-one objects to industries being given time to respond. On the face of it, this amendment appears to do that; but I believe that it does much more. Whatever rules we adopt now in the agreement will be frozen and cannot be changed without a further agreement. Whereas every other industry in South Australia is being granted some exemptions and there is a general expectation that they eventually will comply with the standards, these people are being told, `We are going to set a particular standard now by way of an agreement, and that will be it.' Quite plainly, as we can see under clause 5A(8), if there is to be a variation it will be published in the Gazette. Under clause 5A(7) we see that the variation will be by agreement between the EPA and the licensee. If the licensee does not agree to a change, it does not change. That is the important point that the honourable member missed. Nobody minds their having the exemption, as they effectively have at this time, as long as there is a goal that they will eventually comply with the standard. Effectively, for the life of this legislation, which the Government hopes is 97 years, whatever agreement is struck now will be binding.
It is very hard to anticipate what the future holds. For a long time, PCBs were used in the electrical industry in transformers. Nobody knew for a long time that they were deadly toxic and that they would be a major problem in the environment; we simply did not anticipate it. If we had agreed to something like this 20 years ago, the effect of PCBs would have been exempted, because they would not have been anticipated within the agreement. I give that scenario by way of example. What about the future? What happens if in the future the Environment Protection Act starts taking into account things like greenhouse gases. There is a reasonable possibility that it might; it would be the obvious instrument to use. But, effectively under the licence agreement to which we are referring, they would not have to comply with whatever standards the EPA is being asked to enforce on every other industry.
We are not just talking about generators: we are also talking about any other part of the industry. Another part of the industry that might face something in the future is that concerned with transmission. Significant scientific research is taking place right now in relation to electromagnetic radiation and its potential effects. It is a matter that has been the subject of discussion in this place previously. It appears to me that, if that was a matter for which the EPA might have had some responsibility, whatever agreement is struck at this time is the agreement to which they have to comply. I think that is an absolute nonsense. I note that the Hon. Trevor Crothers does not think that this is too much of a problem and that the Hon. Terry Cameron is not here.
I make the point again that I find it deeply disturbing that every amendment being put, or, perhaps in this case Government amendments that are being opposed, is being portrayed as simply being part of the opposition to the sale or lease of ETSA. That is not the case, and that is not the case in relation to this clause. I repeat: I have no problem with a clause which shows some form of leniency, phase-in times and so forth, but the form of this amendment means that whatever agreement is struck now applies until the licensee agrees to something different. That is the effect of the current drafting, and that is what I am objecting to.
At this point in time, whatever standards are now being applied will be applied ever onward. At no time will the EPA ever be able to require whatever standards are then in force to be applied to the licensee. That is what we are objecting to. We are not objecting to what might be the legitimate concerns of the Government where it wants some sort of certainty, but you cannot give certainty for 97 years. You should not sign agreements which go so far off into the future—
The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It is not just generation—
The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: If you had been listening, I also spoke about transmission and about how electromagnetic radiation may become a matter which is considered a factor within the Environment Protection Act. You can debate whether or not you consider it to be a problem now, but nobody anticipated the problem that PCBs and CFCs became, and no-one anticipated carbon dioxide becoming the problem it is now becoming. Some of these matters could emerge and become a significant problem within a decade; it does happen. That is why I am saying that the Government should not sign an agreement which requires the licensee to agree later on to cater for something which may be of significant concern.
I presume that the only way the State would then get around it, if it were a problem, would be by paying for whatever changes were then expected, even though any other new company such as a Pelican Point or anyone else who starts in the business will be required to comply with the law. Because of the form of this amendment, the State will be required to pay for the changes for these organisations, as that is the only way we will be able to effect them. That is what we object to. The Treasurer should look at that, because some future Treasurer may curse him for it. We do not know whether it will be five, 10 or 20 years, but it will be within the life of these generation companies.
See Sandra Kanck's News Releases during the week of the ETSA lease debate:
| 11 June | ETSA: SA Betrayed, Democracy the Poorer |
| 10 June | ETSA: The Slush Fund has Landed |
| 9 June | ETSA: Potential Profits Given Away |