From our very first case in 1982, we’ve been fighting for fair energy bills for households. We’ve secured significant wins – preventing retrospective price increases, preventing energy companies from blocking reforms that make costs fairer and giving consumers a voice in pricing disputes.   

Our first case: challenging retrospective price rises. 

Our first case was a David v Goliath win that prevented unfair charges for thousands of households. 

In 1982, Sydney County Council (SCC), a government-owned corporation operating the local electricity network, was one of several government councils that announced a significant increase in electricity charges, backdated to the last time households had their meters read. The councils said they had no choice because their supplier – the State Government – had increased supply charges with just two days’ notice. 

Arthur Austin, a 69-year-old retired electrician, took his case to the Supreme Court asserting that the SCC had exceeded its powers by attempting to charge customers retrospectively, initially representing himself. Justice Needham recognised there was a case to answer and suggested Arthur find legal representation.  

As PIAC, we began working with Arthur to prepare for a return to court, while he successfully generated embarrassing media coverage about the charges. A political stoush emerged, with the SCC and the NSW Government blaming each other for the price increase. 

Before our case went to trial, Premier Neville Wran announced that the increase in cost of wholesale electricity to councils would be deferred and his Government later passed laws prohibiting retrospective energy bill increases. 

NSW Ombudsman George Masterman QC had produced a report determining the retrospective charges were probably illegal, but the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) credited Arthur’s efforts for ensuring the unfair charges were defeated.  

Arthur saw how his complaint would have widespread benefits for his community: ‘The real issue was the principle involved. If you had a government instrumentality getting away with retrospective charging, where would it end?’  

‘You’d have all sorts of organisations… saying they’d miscalculated their costs for the past half year and now they were putting their mistake on your bill.’ 

The SMH also recognised how PIAC’s first case had put decision-makers on notice, demonstrating ‘the dangers of taking the public for granted – especially now that the Public Interest Advocacy Centre exists to give legal aid to individuals who are prepared to challenge acts of doubtful legality by Government.’  

Providing a consumer voice in pricing disputes 

In 2015, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) became locked in a legal battle with NSW electricity companies after setting the maximum that could be earned from consumers for network charges (the cost for using the wires and poles, included in bills) lower than the distributors had asked for.  

The regulator argued that networks in NSW were not operating as efficiently as they could be. But the networks challenged the decision, initially in the Australian Competition Tribunal. We become the first consumer organisation to make arguments to the Tribunal when we intervened to assert that the cap should be even lower, as the AER’s determinations still allowed the networks to operate inefficiently. 

When Tribunal found in favour of the AER in some matters, and in favour of the networks in others, the AER appealed to the Full Federal Court.  

As PIAC, we appeared before the Federal Court in October 2016, again calling for lower prices for consumers. The Federal Court found largely in favour of the energy networks but did uphold one of the AER’s grounds of appeal, relating to the networks’ operating expenses and corporate income tax.  

While the final decision was disappointing, our interventions provided increased scrutiny of energy networks on behalf of consumers. Through this time, our work also increased the capacity of other consumer groups to participate in the AER’s processes, and in court and tribunal matters.  

Our actions in this dispute prompted a review and eventual abolition of Limited Merits Review, a process allowing networks to challenge the merit of AER decisions in Tribunal. The review had become part of a strategy for businesses to challenge all AER decisions. Our persistent efforts helped ensure networks could only appeal AER decisions through judicial review. 

Media Coverage 

Sydney Morning Herald, Arthur sees red at the charge of the lights brigade, 28 July 1982 

Sydney Morning Hearld, How a retired electrician got Wran to freeze power charges, 16 August 1982