Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7531 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 75 (line 33), omit "electricity; or", substitute "electricity.".

(2) Schedule 2, item 3, page 75 (line 34), paragraph (f) of the definition of electricity retailer in section 60A, to be opposed.

Yesterday, I made it fairly clear that the way that the bill is written captures households with solar panels on their roofs and the Royal Children's Hospital, which has a co-generation plant, because the definitions are that an 'entity' includes an individual, the 'energy retailer' definition captures people who produce energy, and 'customer' captures those people who buy energy. I note in today's media:

Martijn Wilder, a partner at Baker & McKenzie, said that “on a plain reading, the law does apply to power sold from solar roof panels” and the letter of the law did not reflect the assurances the minister had given. “At best, it is legally ambiguous,” he said.

At the same time, the ACCC has said that they would be guided by what the minister had said in his second reading speech, but the point here is that the High Court, on several occasions recently, has shown that what parliament intended by legislation means nothing if the statute gives rise to a clear explanation, which, in this case, it does. So the courts will take notice of the law, not what the minister cobbles together in a second reading speech

On that basis, my amendment removes any ambiguity about whether this captures people who are producing electricity from their solar panels, or a hospital that is producing electricity with co-generation, or any other. Since that clearly is not the intention of the legislation we ought to remove the ambiguity from the legislation. That is why I am moving to remove from section 60A, this amendment, section (f), that was put in House, which says:

(f) any other entity who produces electricity in Australia.

By removing that you would remove any ambiguity so that people with solar panels and people who are into co-generation—in hospitals and the like—would not be captured by this piece of legislation. It would leave the ACCC without the burden of having to have on the statute books something that it will not enforce, even though it is the law that it does enforce it.

Our job is to make laws that are clear to people, and not to leave the law ambiguous, which will mean that it will land up somewhere in the courts. So I ask the government, the opposition and other crossbench members to support this amendment to give clarity to the law and to give comfort to people who have solar panels, people who are into co-generation and other people who were never intended to be caught up in this legislation in the first place. I recommend the amendment to the Senate.