Maryrorough Solar Pty Ltd v The State of Queensland

Maryrorough Solar Pty Ltd sought a declaration that section 73A of the Electrical Safety Regulation 2013 (Qld) was invalid. The section was inserted by the Electrical Safety (Solar Farms) Amendment Regulation 2019 (Qld). The court was asked to determine if the regulation exceeded the power granted by the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) and whether it conflicted with the Act’s licensing provisions. Maryrorough Solar argued that section 73A went beyond the regulation-making authority of the Act because it required work involving photovoltaic modules at solar farms to be done by a licensed electrical worker, despite these activities not fitting the Act’s definition of "electrical work" and being excluded from the licensing requirements. The State of Queensland countered that section 73A was enacted under section 210(2)(b) of the Act, which allows for regulations prescribing ways to ensure electrical safety, and that it aligns with the Act's objective of preventing electrical harm.

The court examined whether section 73A was within the regulation-making power conferred by section 20 of the Act. It assessed if the regulation imposed a duty on those who might affect electrical safety, as per section 5(a) of the Act, and if it set a benchmark for industry and the community about achieving electrical safety, as per section 5(b)(i) of the Act. The court also considered whether section 73A was inconsistent with the licensing provisions of the Act. The State argued that the regulation was a legitimate means to prevent electrical harm, while Maryrorough Solar contended that it was not authorised by the Act and did not serve its purpose. The court found that section 73A was within the regulatory power granted by the Act and did not conflict with its licensing provisions.

The court concluded that the regulation was valid and consistent with the Act. It found that the regulation was a permissible way to ensure electrical safety, despite not fitting neatly within the definition of "electrical work." The court determined that the regulation served the Act's purpose of preventing electrical harm and did not conflict with the licensing provisions. The court ordered the parties to submit their views on the form of declaratory relief.