❓ Dr. Honey questions the Minister for Energy about Western Power forcing residents to pay for power pole replacements. The Minister clarifies Western Power's legal obligations and hardship program.
AnsweredQoN 792Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WESTERN POWER — POWER POLE DEFECT NOTICES
792. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Minister for Energy:
I refer to the Seven news report
last night that thousands of residential households will be forced to pay to
replace power poles on their property under
threat of having their power shut off, as well as findings in the Parkerville
court case that Western Power is
obligated to either repair or ask consumers to repair private power poles on
their property.
(1) Can the
minister confirm that Western Power could choose to cover the cost of replacing
these poles?
(2) Does the
minister agree with Western Power's decision to force Western Australians
to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket, despite the staggering
cost-of-living pressures so many in our state are currently suffering through?
792. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Minister for Energy:
I refer to the Seven news report
last night that thousands of residential households will be forced to pay to
replace power poles on their property under
threat of having their power shut off, as well as findings in the Parkerville
court case that Western Power is
obligated to either repair or ask consumers to repair private power poles on
their property.
(1) Can the
minister confirm that Western Power could choose to cover the cost of replacing
these poles?
(2) Does the
minister agree with Western Power's decision to force Western Australians
to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket, despite the staggering
cost-of-living pressures so many in our state are currently suffering through?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) No.
Western Power is not able to pay for the poles. That is not possible under the
legislation in Western Australia. Western Power can invest only in its own
infrastructure; it cannot pay for other people's infrastructure. Again,
I do not understand why the member would raise that. I know many people do not
realise that they own the pole themselves, but they are called consumer poles
for a reason; they are owned by the
consumer. The member talked about the Parkerville Supreme Court decision. On appeal,
the Supreme Court overturned the
understanding of Western Australian law. There had been an understanding that Western Power was not responsible for the safety of the first pole, but
the Supreme Court on appeal decided that Western Power is obligated to ensure
the safety of the first pole on the consumer's property. Some rural
properties might have seven, eight or nine consumer poles. Western Power is not
responsible for the safety of those poles, but it is responsible for the safety
of the first pole. That means that it cannot, by the rule set down by the
Supreme Court, attach its infrastructure, that is, the cable, to a pole if the
pole is not safe. Under the decision of the
Supreme Court, Western Power is obligated to do an inspection of all these poles. It is working through that in a systematic manner. Poles
considered too dangerous are taken out of service. For a pole that is
considered to be at risk, 120-day, 90-day, 60-day and 30-day notices are given
to those people.
The government understands that not
all consumers are in a position to replace the pole. Therefore, Western Power
has a hardship program. For those consumers who cannot afford to replace the
pole, Western Power can enter into an agreement with them to deal with that.
Imagine that someone had a property worth millions and millions of dollars;
no-one would expect the taxpayers of Western Australia to pay for
infrastructure owned by that multimillionaire property owner. We have to have a
proper scheme. The scheme is aimed at those in hardship, and that might be
income hardship, because they might be asset rich but income poor. Western
Power is working with individuals on that. I did not see the report last night,
but obviously it has been shared with me by my office. I was surprised at the
nature of that report, given this matter has
been running for some time. The member for Kalamunda did a grievance some time ago, and arising from the grievance from the member for Kalamunda, Western
Power introduced the hardship scheme and changed the notice arrangements. I was
surprised that the news report last night raised that as though it was a new
issue.
Western Power is not able to pay for the poles. That is not possible under the
legislation in Western Australia. Western Power can invest only in its own
infrastructure; it cannot pay for other people's infrastructure. Again,
I do not understand why the member would raise that. I know many people do not
realise that they own the pole themselves, but they are called consumer poles
for a reason; they are owned by the
consumer. The member talked about the Parkerville Supreme Court decision. On appeal,
the Supreme Court overturned the
understanding of Western Australian law. There had been an understanding that Western Power was not responsible for the safety of the first pole, but
the Supreme Court on appeal decided that Western Power is obligated to ensure
the safety of the first pole on the consumer's property. Some rural
properties might have seven, eight or nine consumer poles. Western Power is not
responsible for the safety of those poles, but it is responsible for the safety
of the first pole. That means that it cannot, by the rule set down by the
Supreme Court, attach its infrastructure, that is, the cable, to a pole if the
pole is not safe. Under the decision of the
Supreme Court, Western Power is obligated to do an inspection of all these poles. It is working through that in a systematic manner. Poles
considered too dangerous are taken out of service. For a pole that is
considered to be at risk, 120-day, 90-day, 60-day and 30-day notices are given
to those people.
The government understands that not
all consumers are in a position to replace the pole. Therefore, Western Power
has a hardship program. For those consumers who cannot afford to replace the
pole, Western Power can enter into an agreement with them to deal with that.
Imagine that someone had a property worth millions and millions of dollars;
no-one would expect the taxpayers of Western Australia to pay for
infrastructure owned by that multimillionaire property owner. We have to have a
proper scheme. The scheme is aimed at those in hardship, and that might be
income hardship, because they might be asset rich but income poor. Western
Power is working with individuals on that. I did not see the report last night,
but obviously it has been shared with me by my office. I was surprised at the
nature of that report, given this matter has
been running for some time. The member for Kalamunda did a grievance some time ago, and arising from the grievance from the member for Kalamunda, Western
Power introduced the hardship scheme and changed the notice arrangements. I was
surprised that the news report last night raised that as though it was a new
issue.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.