Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

ELECTRICITY WAYLEAVES AND EASEMENTS BILL 2000 (No. 72)

Second Reading

Mr LENNON (Franklin - Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

The development of electricity transmission and distribution networks in Tasmania was for some eighty years the responsibility of the Hydro-Electric Commission and then the Hydro-Electric Corporation. This responsibility has now been passed to Transend Networks and Aurora Energy for transmission and distribution respectively.

The HEC acquired rights over both public and private land for the development of the transmission and distribution networks on the basis of agreements known as 'wayleave contracts'. In some instances no contracts were required, as the networks followed existing public infrastructure such as roads. This was particularly the case with the distribution network. In other instances, no signed agreement was entered into due to the failure of property owners to respond to the invitation to enter into an agreement. In such cases the HEC had certain statutory rights that it could exercise for the purposes of network development.

The HEC was required to, and did, maintain a register of wayleave contracts. These contracts were often not transferred to title, especially in the case of the distribution network. Over some eighty years, while the contracts were still effective, there were many successors in title to the land and many subdivisions of land which affected both the easements created by the contracts and the statutory easements in the absence of a contract. This also led to the situation where the HEC, and subsequently Aurora and Transend, found themselves having to respond to inquiries in relation to property transactions.

The existing act, the Electricity Supply Industry Restructuring (Savings and Transitional Provisions) Act 1995, sought to remedy this state of affairs by providing for transfer of the registers of wayleave contracts to the Recorder of Titles for inclusion on the title. This transfer is required to be completed no later than 31 December 2000. The underlying policy objective was that all electricity wayleave contracts should be registered on the title of the land.

On reviewing the wayleave contracts registers, the Recorder of Titles determined that they are not in a form capable of being translated accurately onto the register of titles. For these contracts to be transferred onto the register they would need to be surveyed. Transend and Aurora have estimated that the combined direct cost of complying with this requirement would be in excess of $20 million and would take several years to complete. The indirect costs would also be significant.

This bill repeals the provision requiring the transfer of the wayleave register from the existing legislation. The bill draws a distinction between transmission and distribution networks which recognises the different nature of the two types of infrastructure, the means by which they were developed and the means by which the easements were negotiated.

In general, distribution networks follow existing public works and infrastructure, and are much more likely to be subject to extension, replacement or removal over their lifetime. Transmission networks, on the other hand, are much more permanent in their nature and give rise to significant public safety and asset management issues. Accordingly more formalised easement acquisition processes were used during transmission network development.

The bill establishes a new mechanism for landowners and other interested parties to access information contained in transmission wayleave contracts. Transmission entities will be required to maintain a 'roll' of transmission wayleave contracts, similar to the wayleave register currently maintained by Transend. Transmission entities will also be required to maintain a 'map', accessible to the public, that indicates the position of their transmission powerlines and any land affected by transmission wayleave contracts in the roll.

Aurora will not rely on its existing wayleave contracts, as the records in the distribution wayleaves register are less complete and reliable due to the procedures that were used in distribution network development. They will continue to rely on the statutory easement provisions carried over from the existing act.

The statutory easement provisions apply to electricity infrastructure which existed prior to November 1996 and for which records of wayleave contracts cannot be produced. The provisions in the existing act gave electricity entities a statutory right to access and undertake certain activities on and around their electricity infrastructure. As such provisions are essential to ensure that the electricity network is operated in a safe and reliable manner, they are carried over into this bill.

The existing act does not properly distinguish between the powerline corridor width applicable to transmission and distribution infrastructure under statutory easements. That defect is remedied in the bill, with the powerline corridor for transmission powerlines defined as 50 to 60 metres wide, depending on the voltage. The bill recognises powerline corridor widths consistent with existing rights and practices which were established by the HEC over many decades. It must be stressed that it has always been a practice of the HEC - and now Transend - well known to landowners, to control safety clearances within these widths. There will be no practical change to the way in which Transend currently carries out its operations nor the rights landowners currently enjoy.

For distribution powerlines under statutory easements, the bill defines a 'safety and operational area' of 12 metres width, the same as that provided for by the existing act. Within this area, distribution entities are permitted to undertake activities essential for the safe and reliable operation of the distribution powerline. The bill recognises that the Tasmanian Electricity Code may limit both the width and the activities that a distribution entity is permitted to undertake in a safety and operational area.

While there should be a specified standard easement width, in some instances there will be considerations which allow or require that this be reduced. For instance, distribution lines in built up areas following a road reserve do not pose the same fire hazard as do those passing through forest reserves. There may be heritage, environmental, tourism or general amenity considerations to which the electricity entities should have regard in the maintenance and operation of networks.

The statutory easement rights are only effective in the absence of a wayleave contract. Nothing in this bill would cause Transend or Aurora to seek any rights additional to those they have under wayleave contracts and statutory easements. In the event of any dispute between a property owner and an electricity entity, the bill provides for dispute resolution under the Electricity Ombudsman Act 1998 or by other available remedy.

This bill recognises the transition of a network businesses from a government business enterprise with special protection and privileges with respect to easements. As corporate entities they are afforded no special protection for easements acquired since 1996. The electricity entities will manage the risks and preserve their rights as they have done since November 1996 by continuing to register all new wayleaves for electricity infrastructure on title.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill is essential as the requirement in the existing act to transfer the wayleave registers to the recorder of titles by 31 December 2000 cannot be complied with. The bill introduces a new mechanism for making information available regarding transmission wayleave contracts, while Aurora will continue to rely upon statutory easement rights carried over from the existing act.

The existing act failed to properly distinguish between the powerline corridor width applicable to transmission and distribution powerlines. The defect is remedied in the bill, with the transmission powerline corridor width now consistent with established rights and practices. The bill achieves a similar level of information availability for transmission wayleave contracts at considerably less cost and effort than transferring both registers to the recorder of titles.

The bill also recognises that there is a wide public interest in the manner in which the network companies undertake certain operational and maintenance practices, particularly in respect of vegetation management. Accordingly, it promotes the public interest in this regard by recognising the Tasmanian Electricity Code. All existing rights of property owners are recognised and in the event of a dispute there is cost effective and accessible dispute resolution.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RUNDLE (Braddon) - Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition has had a look at this legislation and we would support it, although there are a number of issues that we will be wanting clarification on as we go through the legislation. I note with interest that the minister claims that the estimated cost to rectify this and transfer would be $20 million and it would be time consuming. Yet, as I rack my brain to remember the detail surrounding the formulation and introduction of the 1995 legislation, I have not been able to recall any advice at that time that came to Cabinet that indicated this particular provision of the bill that we now seek to change would have provided any difficulty at a later stage.

The question I ask is: what has changed since the introduction of that original legislation, the Electricity Supply Industry Restructuring (Savings and Transitional Provisions) Act 1995? What has changed since that legislation came to this House, was approved and was subsequently given royal assent because, as I say, I do not remember Cabinet or John Cleary, who was the minister then, making any comment at all that it would be a difficult thing to bring about. Otherwise one would wonder why we included it in that legislation. The figure of $20 million is a large sum of money and obviously provides the Government with some comfort because one would baulk at a figure of that magnitude. I do not know how $20 million is arrived at, whether or not that is a figure that has been puffed up a bit so that it looks a daunting figure and will ease the passage of this legislation through the Chamber, but we would certainly like to have some idea as to how that quantum of money has been arrived at.

One of the other things that we would like to know is: what is the position now in other jurisdictions? Will the Tasmanian way of dealing with wayleaves be consistent with those in other jurisdictions, or will we be the only one or one of the few jurisdictions that now relies pretty much on a laissez faire approach because obviously I think that what you are asking us to approve here is certainly not an ideal way to go about this. I think that when people purchase property, one of the very important things is that they understand absolutely any implications with easements or wayleaves so that they can be in no doubt at all that they are buying an encumbered property.

I am not sure what the difference is between an easement and a wayleave. Ray Groom produced this definition from Butterworth's Australian Legal Dictionary where it says wayleave easement - so maybe there is not a difference:

'1. Permission to make or use a way across private land. Wayleave includes permission to erect wires on pylons. It is usually created by express grant or by reservation. In New South Wales, a trustee may dispose of land with or without a grant or reservation of wayleave or other rights connected to mining purposes: for example (NSW) Trustee Act 1952 s 32.2. A right of way over or through land for the carriage of minerals from a mine or quarry. Upon the sale, exchange, and partition of land the trustee may dispose of the land with or without a grant or reservation of working, wayleaves, or rights of way, rights of water and drainage and other powers, easements, rights and privileges which may be connected to mining purposes: (NSW) Trustee Act 1925 s 32.'

It says 'See also Right of way'. So maybe a wayleave deals expressly with wires and pylons which certainly would account for Transend's high voltage wires but you may be able to provide that information to the House in relation to other jurisdictions and whether or not we will be operating in a similar way and whether or not we will have a wayleave register that differs from those other States and Territories.

The Government is claiming that the rights of landowners are protected and that all information will be readily available to landowners via a roll of contracts and maintenance of a map. One thing that is clear is that historical records are in many case substandard. You make that point, I think; you did not use the word 'substandard' but I think you indicated that some of the historical records are less than perfect and indeed that view is probably reinforced by the comment that the Recorder of Titles does not believe that in fact the information contained on many of them is accurate enough for them to be entered to the title of property and so, obviously, that would involve the need for additional surveying and a much higher quality of material to be available before that work could proceed. Presumably that is where the $20 million, or part of the $20 million cost, comes into being because the need for that surveying to be carried out presumably would be at the cost of those power entities and therefore we can safely assume that a significant proportion of the $20 million would in volve a massive surveying activity of wayleaves in the State of Tasmania.

We would be less inclined to support this legislation if we believed that it was simply a convenient thing for the bureaucracy that, because it is seen as being too much trouble and because someone has placed a $20 million price tag on it, this seems to be the easy way out because at some point in time it may not be considered appropriate to conduct our affairs in this way and we would certainly want to be assured that this is the only way of doing it, that it is not simply an easy way out of what seemed to be a complicated problem.

As I repeat, when we introduced the 1995 legislation we were certainly - to my knowledge - never alerted that we were including in that legislation a clause that would require this kind of remedy three or four years further down the track. Another point that we would need to be assured about is whether or not the purchasers of property in Tasmania are going to be put to additional expense.

Another point that I would make is that we would not want to see anything changed in relation to the cost being placed on purchasers of land in this State and we note - and it has been drawn to my attention by my colleague from Bass, Mr Fry - that clause 5(2) and (3) says that on payment of a fee a person may request a transmission entity to search its roll to determine whether or not a particular piece of land is affected by a wayleave contract. The entity must do so and provide the search result in writing. That is okay. And then it goes on to say that the fee is the same as that if the Recorder of Titles were asked to search a folio in the Register of Titles - see Land Titles Act. So presumably had this transfer taken place, then a purchaser, through his legal representative, would have made a request to find out exactly what easements, wayleaves or any other caveats were placed on that property. A fee would be required in those circumstances and the purchaser would, in due course, pay them as part of his legal costs.

We are saying here, presumably, that the same kind of cost will apply to anyone requesting that information. One would hope that it would not be more difficult to retrieve the information by the transmission entity and that the cost involved to purchasers will not be higher as a result of this legislation because it may be more difficult to retrieve - although one cannot imagine why that would be so - and whether or not there are any other costs that Tasmanian purchasers will be confronted with in the normal course of establishing whether or not their land is encumbered in some way or another, particularly by some kind of transmission wayleave.

We would like to get some detail on the historical state of some of these wayleave agreements but certainly from the minister's second reading speech it seems that some of that work in the past has not been up to what one would have normally thought to be a required standard. In fact, there seems to be some question mark in my mind as to whether in fact they really exist at all, that the real knowledge of all these wayleave agreements is actually with the transmission entity. On reading the legislation, I realised that I had a personal interest in this because over a section of my property there is a pylon and power easement with quite a wide corridor. It is not on any of the titles obviously and I think I was rather surprised to find it there when I became the owner of this property. But certainly anyone purchasing it would want to know about it. It is buried down in the corner of my property amongst tall eucalypts and it transverses a whole range of properties at East Devonport in the vicinity of the Exeter Highway. So, from that point of view, I do understand what this is all about.

I make no other point, other than that, except that I have a wayleave agreement presumably on a section of property that I own in the Exeter Highway region, so I would be one of probably thousands of Tasmanians affected one way or another by various wayleave agreements in this State. It would be interesting to know whether we have a figure on the number of wayleave agreements that exist for the high-voltage and low-voltage transmission lines in this State. It would be thousands and thousands, I would imagine.

They are basically all the points I want to make at this stage. We will have a look at it as we go into Committee. On the evidence we have before us at the moment, we support the legislation, although, as I say, we have this query in our minds: why are we, three or four years later, now amending the 1995 legislation? Are we operating in the same way as other States and Territories or will this leave Tasmania as having a rather quaint way of dealing with this wayleave question?

Ms PUTT (Denison) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to raise a couple of issues which I think fall under this general area anyway, whether or not they come into some of the specifics of this legislation. One of the most frequent complaints that I receive in my office is about people being distressed and upset by proposals to cut vegetation for the purpose of allowing electricity transmission. It occurs regularly that people are very distressed by what happens. There have been occasions when I have contacted Aurora about this - although obviously not on every occasion; sometimes I have had the people pursue the matter themselves. Often it has been too late because they have come home and found vegetation chopped that they would prefer not to have seen chopped or new power lines sited in a way that appears to them to not have taken note of alternatives that would have reduced the amount of vegetation that needed to be cut.

I want to raise, I guess, that general issue that there is a real concern in the community about having trees cut down that they would prefer not to see cut down and that they want to see that situation avoided where possible. Most people are reasonable and understand that you cannot have a tree bashing into a power line, but what they cannot understand is the previous position to site power lines where there are trees when there are alternative routes without trees. That is an issue on which I have never been able to make a lot of progress when talking to the relevant authorities. They claim to have this openness to listen to people and to site things appropriately. But in practice it does not seem to happen nearly as often as I would like because I still have these ongoing problems with people saying, 'They were putting in a new section of power line down my street and they have gone down the side with the trees and cut them all down when they could have gone down the other side of the road, or could have zigzagged across the road', or 'I showed them another route' and so on and 'They did not want to know' or 'They were belligerent with me' or 'They called me a silly greenie and told me where to go' - this sort of thing.

Mr Rundle - Mrs Sharman with the orange-bellied parrot.

Ms PUTT - Yes. The situation in Devonport with the orange-bellied parrot was a case in point.

Mr Lennon - It wasn't the orange-bellied parrot.

Ms PUTT - To give her dues, she was pretty stroppy about it and in the end she managed to get the results she wanted. But she had to continue being stroppy and to make all sorts of threats in order to get there. That is not the way people should have to deal with it. It was quite apparent that if she was going to go quietly she was going to have to accept some lopping of the trees; she was not going to accept it. There have to be circumstances also in which it is decided that because of the particular habitat that is involved, although it will be a greater expense there will be a decision to go underground. So I want to put that to the Government, that has to occur in some instances, even though it is more expensive and it seems that of course the authorities hold out against that.

I will also bring up in this context the issue that arose over the proposal to bring transmission lines into a revamped substation at West Hobart, down the gully through South Hobart, which led to such a community uproar. And again there was the almost point-blank refusal to consider putting the lines underground because it would have cost more. There have to be some circumstances in which the cost is not the overriding factor. And I would have thought that the community amenity in that particular area would have been precisely the sort of circumstance in which undergrounding would have been the preferable option and would have, almost as a matter of course, been incorporated in the proposal rather than being something that Transend was holding out against.

Those are very real issues of concern in the community. The Hydro, before they were broken up into the three entities, had begun to develop a fairly responsive position, after many years of lobbying and name-calling I might add, in terms of trying to reduce the unsightliness of transmission lines coming in from the dams, particularly through some of the wilder areas of the State. Again I want to make the plea for the siting of those lines in areas where it is not necessary to clear native vegetation, rather than always giving the bush a crew cut in the area where the power lines are going to run.

As I say, the Hydro had actually begun to do some good work in that respect but I do not recall having heard Transend reiterate that they would take on that particular policy. I do not know whether it is assumed that they will or not, but I am simply putting it forward that it would be useful to know that that was the continued intention.

I do not know whether this goes to the matter of landholders who have a private power pole who get a notice from Aurora about clearing their vegetation and this is where I have to express an interest because I have just received such a notice and in fact have been having some clearing around the power line occurring on my property. But when a person receives such a notice, there is nothing in the letter to say that there is any ability to actually negotiate about the situation or the demands. The letter simply says it has to be cleared and it has to be cleared by a registered contractor within a certain number of days. It does not even say in the letter what the specified area around the lines is - nothing to help the property owner know what is needed to exactly happen on their property or whether they have a right to negotiate or to work that through with Aurora. It seems to me that that is entirely unsatisfactory; it is the sort of thing that begs for trouble, really, because basically if people have that right, they need to know. If people need to have it cleared to a certain distance around the power lines, it needs to say so in the notification that they receive.

Instead you get this very curt note that is basically an ultimatum and does not actually give a lot of time, either. I think it gives 30 days, which sounds like a lot of time, but should you be on holiday at the time or something like that - and this did actually come over the period of the school holidays - then it might be that the person, by the time they realised they had received a notification and get onto it, cannot actually get contractors in in time, and so on. Then it does not tell you what will happen if you do not do it within 30 days, but my understanding is that contractors will come onto your land regardless, or Aurora employees will come onto your land regardless and charge you for the privilege. That is my understanding from cases that I have dealt with through my office, but again it does not say. I do not know who does customer relations at Aurora, but they need to pull their socks up on that one because that is not a very satisfactory way of handling the situation.

Those were the main points I wanted to make, and to just stress that although we get a lot of good-sounding public relations coming out of the entities about how they are going to be environmentally friendly about all this stuff, it does not actually seem to have changed very much on the ground. Perhaps the people who are working on the ground need to hear about this PR, not just the general public, not just the PR managers for the entities because certainly, from some of the distressed calls that I have received, people have basically been confronted in a pretty nasty way because they dared care about whether trees that are adjacent to where they live or on their property got cut down, as if one should not dare to question the passage of electricity and the reduction of the living amenity in the area. As if we were back fifteen or twenty years ago when it seemed to be quite okay and accepted by the majority of the status quo that you could abuse and treat as a second-class citizen someone who raised these sorts of concerns. Surely we have gone past that now in Tasmania but we need to be sure that we really do have that change in place on the ground. Those were the main concerns that I wanted to raise.

Mr FRY (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, there are just a couple of things I wanted to raise in regard to this bill, and the first issue was the issue which my colleague from Braddon, Mr Rundle, raised in regard to the cost to people purchasing properties. I guess one could be a little cynical looking at this and see that this is a bit of a cost-shifting exercise by the Government in their estimation of the cost of $20 million to transfer all these wayleaves and easements onto titles. I would be interested to know what percentage of these wayleaves and easements were not on titles already because I am well aware that some of them already are.

How on earth they came up with a figure of $20 million, obviously there would have to be a fair bit of surveying work done on properties. I wonder why that could not be done over time and as properties are transferred? Obviously the surveys are checked on properties when they pass in ownership from one person to another and maybe something could be done about it then, but in the meantime once this bill is passed then we are looking at a situation whereby people purchasing properties are going to have to be put to the trouble of having to pay two fees, not just one. Had these easements and wayleaves been recorded on the titles, one title search would have revealed everything that the person would have needed to know about the property, apart from the search which is normally done via the local council which, at this point in time in Tasmania provides the rest of the information, basically, that people need when they are purchasing a property. That has not been the case in other States of Australia, and the conveyancing for people has been much more expensive in other places than it currently is here.

Here we have a situation where we are looking at adding probably another $70 to $75 onto the cost of purchasing a property and the trouble of having to have your solicitor go to another authority to get further information. Had they been put onto the title deed this would have been covered with the one search which would have been much neater, would have been much more effective and it would have been known accurately.

I do not see any provision for the eventual transfer of these wayleaves and easements onto title deeds. I think that is probably something which we will live to regret because if, as the minister here points out, some of the existing wayleaves and easements on the register, on the roll as it is now at the moment, are not quite accurate enough to go on a title deed, why would they be considered accurate enough to remain on the record? I think it is something that needs to be cleared up.

The other thing I would be interested in finding out too is whether there is any increase in the width of any existing easements or wayleaves that are not registered on titles being proposed here. Are there any old ones that are not as wide because it would seem that we are looking here at tidying that up as well and providing a much wider corridor where we are talking about transmission lines as against normal power poles. That is something which needs to be investigated as well.

The other thing too, in regard to conveyancing, is that there are a number of people in Tasmania and other parts of Australia who do their own conveyancing and this would be something, I would imagine, that most people would not be aware of, whereas I would think at the moment that most people would be aware of the fact that you need to do a title deed and a council search because basically you cannot transact a property without doing both of those things, because you would not have the particulars of title accurately and you would not have the costs to be able to settle up on rates and so on. Those two searches at the moment are self-evident. This adds another element to the question and I would think that somewhere down the track, even if it is done slowly, if the cost of $20 million is accurate it could be done bit by bit and gradually all of these could be transferred to titles and the whole thing could be tidied up.

Mr LENNON (Franklin - Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I can deal with the issues raised by the member for Denison, Ms Putt, first.

Firstly, the issues with respect to the private power poles: I will undertake to get some detail for you. I will ask one of my staff to note the detail of that and we will come back to you on that. Whether or not there is a consultative period and a negotiation in those issues you raised in respect to the individual landowner - but I was fascinated about your contribution with respect to where the high voltage lines should be going because this is exactly the argument that is going on in Victoria. I think I will get a copy of your speech and send it to Mr McGauran because he is currently arguing that they should go anywhere other than where the -

Ms Putt - But I also made an argument for undergrounding in sensitive circumstances which was exactly what I mean for that sort of circumstance - not only for the inner city.

Mr LENNON - In any event I have heard what you have had to say on those matters and I will get you some response on those individual matters.

With respect to the issues raised by the Opposition, essentially the member for Bass added to the submission put forward by the member for Braddon, Mr Rundle, the opposition spokesman, so I think if I deal pretty much with what he has raised it should answer your questions as well.

When did this issue come up? I think it was the primary thing because you indicated that when you were in government, when as a cabinet you looked at this legislation, you could not recollect it being brought to your notice. I think that is probably correct. Despite the best of intentions after detailed consultation with the Recorder of Titles, that office advised that it would be required to do a proper survey for each title over which an easement passes. The estimated cost of each if $2 500 and that is where the bulk of the expense would apply, but Land Titles Office fees would also apply. Transend has estimated that between 3 200 and 4 800 titles are affected.

Mr Rundle - Would you say that again?

Mr LENNON - Transend has estimated that between 3 200 and 4 800 titles are affected. In the case of Aurora they cannot give me an estimation of the number of titles but can advise that they have 25 000 kilometres of distribution network rolled out in Tasmania, so one could imagine there would be an enormous number of titles involved there.

On the issue of cost, gross cost therefore, in the case of Transend the estimate is conservatively between $8.7 million to $13 million. That is including the surveying, plus Land Titles Act registration costs. This is for land affected by wayleave contracts. The existing act requires the same treatment for statutory easements. Transend's estimate does not include registration of statutory easements and, as I say, is therefore conservative. The estimate for Aurora is conservatively a similar figure. That is where the $20 million estimated cost comes from, so I would say, on the advice that I have received on this, quite definitely that far from the figure being one, if you like, that might have been blown up to add to the case, it is more a conservative estimate.

On the question of individual cost, which was raised I think by both Mr Rundle and the member for Bass, after 1996, as you would appreciate, these matters are recorded on title, so the normal searching arrangements would apply, so the issue is prior to 1996. And in the case of Transend the maximum fee would be $20. It is most likely to be less than that, as the policy of Transend would be cost recovery only, but I am advised that the maximum cost would be $20 per search. In the case of Aurora there is no charge, so we are really dealing therefore with an issue relating -

Mr Rundle - Aurora no charge?

Mr LENNON - Yes. In the case of Transend, a maximum of $20, and most likely less than that as it would be a cost-recovery service only. You asked about what the situation is in other States.

Mr Rundle - Who sets those fees, though? Can they arbitrarily change those fees from time to time?

Mr LENNON - The fee during the transitional period would be the same as the Recorder of Titles, which is $20. After the legislation is enacted, then it would be cost-recovery fee only, and the advice I have is that this is highly likely to be less than $20.

You asked about what happens in other States. I am advised that this legislation is based on the South Australian legislation, but I cannot give you any direct advice today about the situation applying in other States, although in the case of the historical records the high likelihood is that a similar situation would occur in all other States, and it was not until commencing from the mid-90s that electricity entities began to be broken up and these issues came to light.
In the case of our own system, of course, on the question of the historical records prior to 1996 which you asked about, then I can offer this to you, that there was never a requirement under the HEC act to register easements on title. Therefore over that 80-year period of the life of the Hydro the keeping of accurate records lapsed. Subsequent investigations revealed a substantial register not acceptable to the Recorder of Titles for translation onto the recorder's register.

That information, as you say from your recollection - the consequence of that I think you were submitting was not presented to you when you considered the original legislation and the advice I have received is that was most likely the case, that it was not presented to you because the problem of the state of the records was not discussed in detail with the Recorder of Titles until earlier this year. They were the final discussions; the initial discussions commenced about two years ago and the end result of these is that he is requiring that a survey be done and that is where the costs come from, if the existing legislation is used.

Mr Rundle - So basically everything after that date in 1996 has now been transferred to title - everything prior to 1996 is not and that is what we are talking about here with this bill?

Mr LENNON - Yes, exactly. We need to distinguish here between the date of implementation of your legislation, so everything after that is recorded on title, everything prior to that is really what we are talking about.

Mr Rundle - That 1995 legislation wasn't proclaimed until 1996 apparently?

Mr LENNON - That is right. That is correct, yes. I hope that gives you some further information on that matter.

You asked about the Butterworth definition, yes, we have no disagreement with your colleague's research in that regard. He has pointed you to an accurate definition of easements and wayleaves by referring you to Butterworth. So we do not disagree with that.

I think really that deals with all the issues that you have raised to date. So with that I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read the second time.