Department for Energy and Mining, $134,125,000

Membership:

Hon. A. Koutsantonis substituted for Ms Hildyard.

Minister:

Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan, Minister for Energy and Mining.

Departmental Advisers:

Dr P. Heithersay, Chief Executive, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr V. Duffy, Executive Director, Energy and Technical Regulation, Department for Energy and Mining.

Ms A. Blood, Executive Director, Mineral Resources, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr N. Smith, Executive Director, Growth State and Low Carbon Transition, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr N. Panagopoulos, Deputy Executive Director, Energy Resources, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr S. Oster, Director, Growth State and Low Carbon Transition, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr B. Adams, Manager, Financial Services, Department for Energy and Mining.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to Estimates Committee A. I advise the committee that the member for Reynell has been replaced on the committee by the member for West Torrens. The portfolio to be examined this afternoon is the Department for Energy and Mining. The minister appearing is the Minister for Energy and Mining. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he wishes, and certainly introduce his advisers.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will make a very short statement but, first of all, let me introduce Mr Ben Adams, Manager, Financial Services, on my left, and over my left shoulder, CE Dr Paul Heithersay. Next to him is Vince Duffy, Executive Director, Energy and Technical Regulation. Behind him is Ms Alexandra Blood, Executive Director, Mineral Resources, and beside her is Mr Nick Smith, Executive Director, Growth State and Low Carbon Transition. Behind him is Mr Nick Panagopoulos, Deputy Executive Director, Energy Resources, and next to him is Mr Scott Oster, Director, Growth State and Low Carbon Transition.

Chair, I would like to put a few short comments on the record. This has been a very tough year, as we all know. There is no need to go over that, but I have to say that our Department for Energy and Mining and the industry participants with whom we engage have done an absolutely extraordinary job through this calendar year. Industry has pulled together in energy and mining in a way that it never has before.

It has always been a competitive world where competitors do still try to work in a sensible fashion together. I would like to acknowledge SACOME and their efforts in coordinating industry, particularly with regard to drive-in drive-out workers within South Australia and across state borders. Certainly, AMEC and APIA and others have worked very hard on that.

I will not go on any longer, other than to say that people have lifted in a way that they have never lifted before. Cooperation has been absolutely outstanding and that has, perhaps to the surprise of some observers, also contributed to the fact that we have had record sales income in energy and mining over the last financial year and record royalties coming into our state as well.

Let me say that I have not arranged any government questions. If any member has a burning issue that he or she wishes to ask, of course, so be it, but as far as I am concerned I am happy to hand over to the shadow minister.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, do you have a statement you would like to make?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, sir, other than to say that the minister is blessed with the best department in government. He is very lucky to have it. If I can refer the minister to Agency Statement, Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 116, sub-program 1.3, highlights 2019-20, the fourth dot point on the page is the continued support and implementation of the 10-year Targeted Lead Abatement Program with a focus on contaminated land clean-up and management of legacy lead within Port Pirie. Can I just confirm that the minister is the lead on the TLAP program?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That is correct.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is the minister aware of reports published by the government yesterday that record levels of lead are being found in children in Port Pirie, the highest since testing began.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Chair, I can share a piece of information from the Department for Health and Wellbeing, which published its third-quarter analysis of Port Pirie children's blood lead levels, which shows blood lead levels measured have plateaued. Director of Scientific Services, Dr David Simon, said the report provides detailed analyses of the blood lead levels of Port Pirie children aged up to five years of age. I quote:

There has been an improvement observed in some blood lead indicators—for instance the reduction in the number of children with high blood lead levels equal to and above 20 micrograms per decilitre…has continued, Dr Simon said.

Dr Simon also said:

However, the improvements or deteriorations in all other reported measures were slight—indicating that blood lead trends have generally stalled over the past 12 months.

There is more of that, which I am sure the shadow minister can find if he does not have it right in front of him, but just let me add that this is a very serious issue. There is no level of lead in blood above what health experts say is acceptable that is acceptable to our government.

The previous government worked incredibly hard to try to address this issue as we are continuing to work incredibly hard to address this issue. We have had an independent review done on behalf of the government into the Targeted Lead Abatement Program (TLAP), which is still being worked through in a very serious fashion. It has not been released yet.

Certainly, not all of that report will be released because some of it may well be deemed confidential. A lot of it, or perhaps most of it, will be released in the not too distant future. This is a problem that has been in Port Pirie and the surrounding district for over 150 years now in many ways, and certainly in the last few decades successive governments have tried incredibly hard to deal with this. I say again that the last government did exactly that, and we are doing exactly that.

I am sure that, regardless, whoever is in government is going to do the very best they can for the people of Port Pirie and the surrounding region. The advice from Health that the lead in blood levels has plateaued, perhaps on the one hand is welcome but it is actually not good enough: we need the lead in the blood of young children in Port Pirie to decrease.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Minister, you referenced a review, which is being conducted I understand at the halfway point of the 10-year program. I think that is right. I have a few questions I would like to ask you about this. I am happy for you to take them on notice if you do not have the answers with you, or you could ask your advisers who are here.

When did this review commence? Did you consult on the terms of reference for the review? Who was involved in the consultation over this review? Was the local mayor consulted? Was the local state member of parliament or the federal member of parliament consulted? Was anyone from the community consulted, and have you received a draft report? I will start with those questions, and we will see how we go from there.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I might seek a bit of detailed information in a minute and, as you said, perhaps take some of that on notice. I do not remember the exact date when it started, but essentially it has been through this calendar year. The report was undertaken by Mr Lew Owens, somebody who I think everybody in this place is familiar and comfortable with.

How the terms of reference were developed, I will take on notice. With regard to consultation, I do not have specific answers to each of those categories of potential person or organisation other than to say that it is my understanding that most, if not all, were consulted. It was certainly the government's intention when commissioning the independent report that there be very wide consultation with the local community particularly. I know that happened. Whether every, single person that you have just mentioned was consulted, I will take that on notice, but certainly this was meant to be a 'no stone unturned' and 'give us fearless and frank advice' independent report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have you received it?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes. In fact, I have received the final report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You have received the final report?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you inform the committee whether you will be making that public?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: As I mentioned in my first answer on this topic, it will be soon.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Will you be tabling it in parliament, or will you be just releasing it on a website? Can you give us a time frame? Is it one month, is it this year, is it next year?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No. The answer is the same as it was before. In fact, I am quite sure there will be some things in that report that should be kept confidential; so, the majority, if possible, but whatever is fair and reasonable to be made public will be made public, and it will be done very soon, but this is not something that we want to rush. We are not dawdling, but this is very serious business.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, it is.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We are doing our very best to get this information out as quickly as we can. But perhaps even more important is the response, the actions that would be taken in response to this report. It is something I have discussed with the member for Frome on quite a few occasions, so he is as informed as I can possibly make him on this topic. I take this very seriously, I accept that he takes it very seriously and I am sure that everybody in government and in opposition takes this issue very seriously.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Minister, you indicated that the review has started, and I know we have had some discussion on this, but I need to clarify something. The original terms of reference were for a review to be done halfway through the 10-year term. You indicated that that has been going on for six years now, and your indication was that the review started this year, which is over six years in the making. You indicated you have the final report. As the local member, I have had no involvement in the draft that was sent out; I have not seen it, nor has the local mayor. Can you give an indication whether the local mayor and the local member will be involved before the final report is published?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: My response to the member for Frome is identical to the response I gave him when he asked me exactly this question in private. This is a serious issue. There is no difference in my answer to this question in private or here in estimates in front of this committee and with Hansard recording it. The report, or what of it is appropriate to be made public, will be made public soon—the sooner the better, from my perspective—but no sooner than a very appropriate government, Nyrstar and TLAP response is determined.

With regard to when the local member, who is interested in this and whom I certainly respect, and when the mayor, who is interested in this and whom I also certainly respect, would get to see it and could say they see it early, again my answer is exactly the same as I gave face to face to the member for Frome in private, and that was that I would try to make sure that he received a copy of what was going to be made public in advance of it being made public.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Minister, you indicated that parts of the report may not be made public because of confidentiality. From the terms of reference of the original TLAP, I am confused as to what could be confidential. I am led to believe that TLAP is separate to the environmental health services, which have the names of people and young children who have lead in blood issues, so can you explain to me and to this committee why any parts of the TLAP review should be kept confidential?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I can explain very clearly by giving an example. As I mentioned, this was deliberately a broadly consulted, essentially a warts and all type request from the government to Mr Lew Owens. We wanted his frank and fearless advice. In the report he, I am sure faithfully, reports some of the information that was provided to him. That information has not been censored. That information has not been distilled or cleaned up in any way, and Mr Owens has done an outstanding job of providing this information to the government the very best that he possibly could.

I am sure that the member for Frome and the member for West Torrens, both having been former ministers, would understand that there are some times when it is very appropriate not to release every detail that is in a report, hypothetically, if a person has shared a personal view in consultation, provided some statements to the independent reviewer which, if they were released publicly, might get that person into a little bit of hot water.

That is not to say that the person's opinion is not valid; it is what it is. We are all aware of situations where it would not be appropriate to make every detail that is in the report public because doing so might get the person who shared an opinion into some difficulty in a legal capacity, if not in a social or a community capacity. It might be for a range of other reasons that it may not be appropriate to release the report in full. But, as I have said, it is my intention that we will release as much as is appropriate as soon as is appropriate.

The CHAIR: Just for the sake of the committee, I assume, member for Frome, you were referencing the same budget line: the bottom dot point on page 116.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On the same budget reference, without wishing to start a quarrel in the committee—

The CHAIR: Indeed. A rather obscure standing order refers to that, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You know how averse I am to quarrels in parliament. Minister, I have to say that I am not satisfied with that last answer, and I will give you my reasons. The reason we have parliament and independent reports and the tabling of provisions of parliamentary reports in this place is to apply privilege to those documents so people can speak freely to government without fear of retribution.

The fact that a government minister would sit in this chamber and say that people who have spoken fearlessly and frankly to the government may fear that they may have some sort of legal jeopardy because they have spoken to the government betrays that we have privilege in this house for a reason. The reason the government conducts inquiries and tables them in this place is to afford those people privilege, so I dismiss that completely out of hand. It is not a criticism of you; I am just simply stating and reasserting the privileges that we all enjoy in this place. That is point 1.

Point 2 is that Mr Lew Owens, as credentialed as he is, is not a medical expert. He is a business expert. He was an independent regulator in the past. He has run massive utilities. He is very, very skilled at business. We are talking about a health outcome that, for whatever reason, including in my time, has been assigned to the Minister for Energy. Perhaps it would have been better assigned to the Minister for Health, and there are criticisms on both sides for that. Perhaps it might have been better to have done that when we were in office as well.

My point here is that thus far you have given this committee no justifiable reason for not releasing that report in full, other than not identifying individual private medical advice of individuals. Any other advice given to that committee or that review can be published without fear of legal retribution or jeopardy because we are parliament. So I will again ask you: will you give the committee a commitment that you will table this document in the parliament, protecting everyone who has given that review their frank and fearless opinions, to protect them from any legal jeopardy? Of course, every member would support private medical information being redacted but, other than that, I can see no reason why that report should not be made public in full.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It might be that the member for West Torrens can see no reason that it should not be provided in full because he has not seen the report. He can have his opinion. He is welcome to his opinion. His opinion, as just expressed, certainly is different from the number of reports that were not released publicly, and many of them not even partially released, when the member for West Torrens was a minister in the previous government. Many reports were treated exactly the same way. I am not suggesting that was irresponsible. I am suggesting that it is irresponsible to think that I should do things differently from the way he did things.

This information was not provided to the government. This information, by the people who were consulted with, was provided directly to Mr Owens. This is absolutely no different from parliamentary standing committees that take evidence from private people, and very often some of that evidence is not made public, not tabled in parliament and not provided under parliamentary privilege, as the member suggests should be the case. It is quite normal practice.

There is nothing about what needs to be done to try to address the lead and blood levels that will be not made public. I have given a reason why I think it would be sensible to keep some information, but I assure the committee that the information that is actually relevant to trying to make sure that we have less lead in the blood of young children in Port Pirie will be made public.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to the same budget line again. If I could ask you respectfully, do you think you are conflicted in this because you are a candidate for the seat that encompasses Port Pirie?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am not sure what budget line that addresses but let me be really plain.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not trying to offend you; I am just asking—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am not sure that is true. Let me be really plain: (1) technically I am not a candidate for the seat of Port Pirie, and (2) this is work that has been going on in a very sensible, very genuine way under the previous government and under the current government. I am a member of parliament who currently represents people who live extremely close to Port Pirie, who would be considered to be in the catchment area for these risks.

As you allude to, it might well be that I become a candidate for this seat, so let me just finish by saying that if you suggest for a second—for a millisecond—that the way I would deal with this issue as a minister would be affected in any way by my proximity to Port Pirie, as a person living in Wilmington or any other proximity, then you would direct exactly the same thing to the current member for Frome. I do not accept that that is true. I do not accept that that is relevant to me or to the current member for Frome, but if you want to suggest anything along those lines, that would be absolutely disgraceful.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Frome does not have access to this report.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Your suggestion was that dealing with this issue might be impacted in some way. It is just not true. I do not accept that you are not trying to start a quarrel, I do not accept that you are asking that question respectfully, and I do not accept any of the premise that is to do with those most recent remarks by you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think that is a bigger reflection on you than me.

The CHAIR: Sorry, member for West Torrens, I missed that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a reflection on him, not me, sir.

The CHAIR: On who?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The minister. His statement is a reflection on him, not me. Are you going to ask me to withdraw it, are you?

The CHAIR: No, I am not.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Good. If we can move on, who is currently on the TLAP Committee?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I do not have that specific information with me but I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand that Nyrstar makes a contribution of $3.5 million per year to that committee. Is that accurate?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, I am advised that that is accurate. I am also advised that it is not anywhere in the Department for Energy and Mining's budget papers. Understanding that you are asking about TLAP contributions, the only budget connection to Energy and Mining is Associate Professor Rob Thomas, who participates.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Excellent. An excellent individual. So the 10-year Targeted Lead Abatement Program, administered out of your office, does not in any way oversee how any of that money is spent; is that right?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Is that a question or a statement?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am asking. Again, I will take you back to page 116, which states, 'Continued to support the implementation of the 10-year Targeted Lead Abatement Program.' I understand that Nyrstar makes a contribution to that program of $3.5 million per year. I understand that the council makes an allocation to that program as well, as does the state government. What I want to know is: do you have any oversight of how that money is spent or is that done by Health?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Nobody in the Department for Energy and Mining or I have any oversight of how that is spent.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given your support of the implementation of the 10-year Targeted Lead Abatement Program, at any stage has that $3.5 million from Nyrstar gone unspent? Do you have a line of sight to that or is that another minister?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that we get to see the budget. We get to see whether it is spent or not, but we have no influence on whether it is spent or not.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Who decides how that money is spent?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Nyrstar TLAP money?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The TLAP Committee does.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is there a government representative on that committee?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He is your delegate on that committee?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Correct. You might have appointed him.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I might have. He is very, very talented. Is he your delegate?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I am to take this correctly, you get to appoint a delegate to this committee; you see the budget every year. What happens to unspent money from Nyrstar? Is it carried over or is it returned to Nyrstar?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: As I suspect the member for West Torrens knows—and as I know that the member for Frome knows because he has asked me about this in previous situations, and my answer is the same in private as it is in estimates—yes, the unspent money is returned to the company.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, despite your reservations, I am not trying to make a criticism of you. Nyrstar are represented on this committee as well, aren't they?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Your representative, a council representative, and who else?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is the same question that I said I would take on notice before.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, I apologise. Given the lead level results that were published yesterday by the Department for Health—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The plateauing of lead levels?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, no. To be fair, minister, the media reports on the ABC in Port Pirie say:

SA Health data shows lead levels in Port Pirie two-year-olds are the highest recorded since the South Australian regional city's current testing regime began in 2011.

Is that inaccurate?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Then it would be important for the Department for Health and Wellbeing and the ABC to get their heads together to determine why there is a difference in the information that has been put out by the two.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My point, though, is that if Nyrstar is required to make this $3½ million payment, and if they do not make it, if they do not spend it, they get it back, how do we compel Nyrstar to spend that $3½ million on lead abatement measures if the committee decides not to spend it and they simply get it back? Over a 10-year period, they are contributing $3.5 million per year. If it is not spent they get it back. I think that is probably an unfortunate situation that may be leading to some poor outcomes, and I just wonder whether or not you think it can be remedied in any way.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Well, that is the question that I suggest you would be far better positioned to answer than me because the make-up of the committee, this system of putting money in per year but not rolling it over, was actually put in place under the previous government. You may or may not have been involved in actually setting up this TLAP Committee but, either way, the way it works now was something that you and your cabinet colleagues were very involved in.

It might be that the member for Frome, as one of your cabinet colleagues over a period of time, has been involved in it or had an opportunity to look at it over time. You are in a far better place to answer the question about why it is so because you were there when it was made so. With regard to what we are doing now, we are looking very seriously at how we try to improve what we inherited from you, as a former minister, and from the member for Frome, as a former minister, in the previous government.

We are doing the very best we can with what we inherited. We are looking to make changes. I have no doubt the previous government did its very best in this work. We are doing our very best and we will improve in this work. We are dealing with the way the committee works, the way the committee is structured, including how the money is rolled over or not rolled over, which we inherited from the cabinet that you and the member for Frome were both members of.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Can I—

The CHAIR: Do you have a question, member for Frome?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No, I want to get a clarification here, Mr Chairman. As the local member and as a cabinet minister, whenever anything came up regarding my electorate, I have a conflict of interest, and I made that conflict interest and declaration at all discussions about anything to do with my electorate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can the money that Nyrstar contribute to TLAP be spent on capital within Nyrstar itself? That is, can the committee that oversees the management of this budget, including your delegate, take that money and rather than spending it on lead abatement or lead clean-up in the city or other measures, for example, use it for capital improvements on the plant itself?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Let me take that on notice, but let me say very clearly that the way they can spend the money now is identical to the way they could spend the money under the previous government.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: But it is a committee that meets and makes regular announcements, and the delegate now is under your instruction rather than mine. The reason I say that is that if your delegate on this committee—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Rob Thomas.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —is making decisions, are they decisions that require approval from an executive director or higher, or is he completely independent on that committee?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I do not believe that is the case. I will check in just a minute. My understanding is that this committee has a life of its own and it has a responsibility of its own. I am not aware of anybody in the previous government or the current government interfering with those decisions, other than, as I have said, we are looking to improve the way this committee works. Let me just check.

I am advised that the TLAP Committee up until about a year and a half ago reported to an executive committee that my CE was on, but they reported that the executive committee in no way influenced the decisions of the TLAP Committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the TLAP Committee reports to your CE, but the CE does not exert any influence over them?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That used to be the case, and now the reporting does not happen and the CE still does not exert any influence over them.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Since becoming minister, have you written to the commonwealth government at any stage seeking extra funds or written any memos or made any requests through a COAG process or the new intergovernment agency process to have commonwealth funds added to the TLAP process to help lead abatement and clean-up in Port Pirie?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That is the type of consideration that will come out of the full and thorough assessment of the independent report we have received.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So that is, no, you have not?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Not previously.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Are there any current or previous Nyrstar employees on the TLAP Committee?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised no.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When the financial contributions are made to the committee, is the department responsible for the contribution or does that come out of SA Health?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: SA Health.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Does SA Health have a representative on the committee?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, they do, the local—I might not get this term quite right—regional director or regional manager for Health.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So there are two government officials on that committee?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, correct.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: On the same budget line, minister (and we have had this discussion before, but I need to ask the question here), and the issue with the communication of the hotspots that are happening and identified through the Environmental Health Centre—which is separate from the TLAP funding—are any funds being expended or transferred from TLAP to the Environmental Health Centre, which manages the counselling and the testing of children's blood lead levels in Port Pirie? Are there any funds from TLAP itself, which is the Nyrstar contribution, being transferred on an annual basis to the Environmental Health Centre?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Member for Frome, I do not think so and my CE does not think so, but we will take that on notice for you just to be absolutely sure.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can refer the minister to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 109, you detail the support package of reforms to construct an interconnector called Project EnergyConnect to New South Wales. I have asked you in previous estimates committees if there is a $200 million contingency held by the Treasurer for that interconnector. Is that still the case today?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: You have asked me a similar question in two previous years, and it is a fair question. I have answered in previous years that it is in the Treasurer's contingency. I have told you in both the last two years that there is not a specific $200 million contingency. It is part of a much larger Treasurer's contingency at the Treasurer's discretion; in fact, we have been drawing on that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When you say you have been drawing on that $200 million contingency, is that for the advance works you announced recently, the $13 million?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And others.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Do government press releases and media reports say that those advance works are on top of a $200 million contingency or as part of that $200 million interconnector fund that was announced in 2018?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I would have to take that on notice. I do not recall any recent press releases referring to a $200 million contingency. It might well be the case, but the reality is that what really counts is we have said all along that there is money available to support this project if it would be sensible to do so, and we are doing exactly that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Premier and you put out a press release on 8 October, when you said that this was an SA to New South Wales interconnector to deliver even bigger savings for SA households and businesses. You say here, and I quote, that 'households are set to save $100 per year on their electricity bills' as a consequence of the interconnector; is that accurate?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That is the most accurate information that I have available.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that a wholesale number or a retail number?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Wholesale or retail?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that a wholesale electricity saving or a retail one?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Residential.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So it is retail?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Are you aware that in a report to the AER by ElectraNet they state that these savings are wholesale?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, I am not aware of that, but let me just make it very clear that the number is an average per year residential household saving.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How about we leave that for a moment and I will come back to it in a minute. Just so we are clear, your advice to the committee and the parliament is that that number is a residential retail saving per year on a household as a consequence of the interconnector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That is the advice I have received, so it is my advice to the committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I ask who gave you that advice?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It came from the ElectraNet report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The ElectraNet report that was given to the AER as part of their submission?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And other places.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, you have some discussion about the rollout of your new regulations regarding solar panels. I am just wondering if, at any stage in the consultation process with these regulations, a moratorium on the installation of new solar panels was flagged with solar panel retailers.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, can you just direct me to the line?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I can. Sorry, I am just getting used to using glasses for the first time in my life. Every time I take them off, my eyes go blurry. It is on page 108:

The department's role is to deliver the government's commitment to reduce energy costs, improve energy reliability and secure energy supplies as part of an orderly transition to lower emissions generation.

Is that good enough?

The CHAIR: And you are going to talk about solar panels?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, his new regulations. I am just asking: at any stage did your agency say that, as an alternative to these regulations, a moratorium on the installation of solar panels was an option'?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It depends on what you mean by, 'Did we ever say it?' Certainly, as many options as possible were considered. The 'do nothing' option was considered, but that was unacceptable, and a moratorium option was considered, but that was unacceptable. We considered a range of options, and we landed where we landed. It was one of the things that was an option, that was considered, but almost immediately removed from the table because it was not something we were going to do.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Some retailers have approached the opposition and said that during the consultation process they were told that if they did not accept these regulations then the other option was always going to be a moratorium. That never occurred? Obviously you were not there, you would not know, but do you think that is an appropriate way to deal with stakeholders?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will not automatically accept what someone said to someone said to someone, that you are now repeating. I will say that we engaged incredibly deeply with individual companies, with representative bodies, with householders, with suppliers, with manufacturers, with a wide range of people, and, of course, with SAPN and AEMO and others.

The advice to implement this measure actually came from AEMO to government very soon after the last election. We actually went to AEMO and said, 'We've been looking at this looming net negative demand problem coming under the previous government for a very long time. We are not prepared to sit on our hands, like they did. We need some advice, please.'

AEMO came back to us with some advice, which included that under the most rapid scenario we could see net negative demand—or, in fact, even unacceptably low levels of net demand—on the grid, after netting off all the electricity that goes in and all the electricity that goes out, as soon as spring this year. That was their early scenario. Their mid-range scenario was later.

We—in fact, I—took a decision to say that we were not prepared to risk it, we were not prepared to do what the previous government did and ignore expert advice and we were not prepared to just pretend these risks were not real. These risks are real, so if AEMO tells us that this could happen in spring this year, then we will do what is necessary to make sure that it does not happen in spring this year.

We had a lot of discussion through the consultation process—some of it was smooth, some of it was not smooth—but there were certainly no threats or anything like that at any stage. I do not doubt that some of my representatives would have made very clear the whole range of options that were available. Essentially, they were the range of options AEMO put to the government. AEMO said, 'Here are our options,' and I am sure government representatives would have canvassed all those options that AEMO put forward.

We never intended—in fact, we deliberately excluded—the 'do nothing' option. We deliberately excluded the moratorium on future solar installations option. Where we landed was that as rapidly as possible, certainly by spring this year, we would make sure that all new solar rooftop residential installations from that point onward were installed with the capacity to turn them off, which is what we did. Essentially, what 'turn them off' means is make sure that they cannot feed into the grid, if absolutely necessary.

This was made abundantly clear at the time, and it remains the case that this is an absolutely last resort option. When we are faced with unacceptably low net demand on the grid we, through SAPN and others, can turn off wind farms, can turn off solar farms, we can curtail them. We can do the same with gas generators.

There is one chunk of aggregated generation in this state, approximately 1.5 gigawatts accumulatively, which actually could not be managed. Hundreds of thousands of rooftop solar installations needed to be addressed. We will never use—and I use that broad 'we' again—this option unless it is absolutely necessary to avoid a blackout. It applies to only new installations from that point in time onwards, or existing installations over time, as they might have retrofits or something like that that would give them some sort of an upgrade.

We will do as we have always done and as the previous government did: curtail other generators first, but if absolutely necessary, then we will need to use this tool. What is interesting is that while this is not something that anybody wanted to do, including the government, the industry and AEMO—nobody really wanted to do that and there were concerns about what this action might have upon the installation industry—installations of new rooftop solar across South Australia have not slowed down at all.

There are agents providing this mandatory service to new installations charging zero fees. There are installers out there who have not increased the cost of new solar installation at all, even though it includes this new equipment. We have done this as sensibly as we possibly can. We have done this as responsibly as we possibly can. We looked at all of the options and we landed on the option that we thought we needed to do and in fact was recommended to us by AEMO.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, minister. You said there that agents are offering their services free of charge through some installation arrangements. These are the agents that control the inverters that allow you to curtail dispatch into the grid; is that correct?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is a system that essentially everybody must be signed up with an agent and that agent then engages with SAPN. There are agents out there who are offering to do that at no cost.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For free? Are there other agents who are offering this service for a fee?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I would have to take that on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What is the average fee per year? Do you know that?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I would have to take that on notice. But again this is something that is a tool that is not expected to be used, not wanted to be used. In fact, as some of our other energy policies roll out and are implemented—the interconnector with New South Wales; grid-scale storage projects; as more and more household batteries roll out; as demand management rolls out and as these things all roll out, the things we are already doing and we have started doing but we still have more work to do—the likelihood of needing to use this tool diminishes very significantly over time. There was a point in time at which it was deemed and recommended to government by AEMO that it was necessary to put that in place, and that is what we have done.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have you received any advice on the agency, the technical regulator or any other service provider that the process of inhibiting the dispatch into the grid through this new regulation that you have introduced will make people who have batteries installed in their homes unable to work during that period when they are not dispatching in? Is that accurate, or is that not true?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That is a first and early phase. Where we are heading in fairly quick time is that only the dispatch, the feed-in into the grid, will be curtailed. Today, it is more than that, but we are working very quickly and very rapidly to get to that stage where the batteries can still work—the solar can still put power into the batteries, the batteries can still put power into the home—but it was not possible to have that capacity available in the very short time frame that we had.

Let me say again that this will only be used if absolutely necessary to avoid a blackout. The default position is not, 'Everything would be working okay if SAPN didn't use this tool for the new installations.' The default position is actually having a blackout. For a household, if this tool is ever used, then it will be used in preference to having a blackout. If we had not done this, then by definition, there would have been a blackout.

To come back to the main point of your question, we are working very hard to get that capacity installed as quickly as possible for all of these new installations so that it is only the feed-in that is curtailed and no other part of the system's serviceability.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When were you told that your regulatory changes would impact home batteries as well—before you proposed the regulation or after?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I would have to take that on notice and check it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When you proposed this regulation, were you advised by the agency that the regulations would have an impact on home battery use?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Let me take that on notice and check it. It is the same question, same answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have been told by industry groups that you were not informed by the agency. I do not know if this is accurate or not, so I am just going to put it to you and you can do what you like with it. I was told that you and your Chief of Staff were informed by industry groups that the consequences of your publicly announced changes were that batteries would be redundant in a blackout where these changes are implemented and that it was subsequent to the regulations being put out for consultation.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Batteries would be redundant in a blackout? This is actually about avoiding blackouts.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand, but, from your previous answer, you conceded that these changes impact home batteries as well from operating; that is, if someone puts solar panels on their house and a battery, these changes, if implemented, would mean that that householder could not access their battery if there is a blackout or for some other reason; is that correct or is that incorrect?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think you are mixing up the key point here, which is that this tool will only be used to avoid a blackout. It is nothing to do with whether the battery works or not during a blackout. It is to do with using this tool to avoid a blackout, which would otherwise be caused by net negative demand. Your question, which you have now asked three times, was: when was I informed? For the third time, the answer is the same: I will take that on notice and find out.

But it is important that I restate that this is something that only affects new installations, so everything about these new regulations is made perfectly clear to people getting new installations. Everything about this is known at the point in time when a person decides if he or she wants to get a new installation with these new regulations attached.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What will your other changes that you have announced now to this system do to batteries? You have just said that you will be coming back with some other changes to change the impact on batteries; what are they?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will take that on notice, but let me say again that one of the key things we are doing is making sure that, if this tool is used to curtail feed-in back into the grid, we want batteries to still be able to work, so the solar on the house can still charge the battery, the battery can still charge the house and it could still potentially be part of a virtual power plant. That is very much part of the intention, part of the deliverable, of this set of regulations, but it was not possible to get it done in September, when we needed to have the tool available.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So we are clear—and I hate to labour this, as I know it is frustrating you—right now, when you use this intervention, you render a battery unable to be charged by the home's solar panels and the battery unable to be used by the householder; is that correct?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I cannot add anything else to my previous answers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have to say that I do not understand why you cannot just be clear with the committee on this.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have already been clear.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It seems to me that you do not want to have to say it because it is an unintended consequence because you may have rushed these regulatory changes. It seems to me that people in South Australia will be horrified to know that you are using a very, very blunt tool to stop the problems with net negative demand by also taking out batteries. The whole idea was to stop feed-in to the grid, but now you have gone further than that and intervened with people's home batteries. Now with those home batteries, you need further supplemental changes and I am not sure at whose cost that would be. Is it a regulatory change, or is it a mechanical change, or is it simply a direction that you can issue? I do not understand.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Chair, it is true that the member for West Torrens does not understand. This information might have come very recently to the member for West Torrens, but there has been no secret about this. This is how it works. There is a range of changes to be made so that all homes—those with solar, those without solar—can be better protected from blackouts.

There were some things that we could do in September to put that protection in place, which we did. There were some other things which we could not do at that point in time which we still will do. This is evolving, but certainly the absolutely incorrect suggestion by the member for West Torrens that people would be horrified to find this out is clearly inaccurate because this applies only to new installations and it applies only to new installations after that point in time. When somebody is considering whether or not they want to have a new installation, they are provided with all this information.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: By whom?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: By their installer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So a household in Port Augusta wants to put on solar panels and a battery. They will be informed by the installer that new government regulations mean that the minister can, through advice from either AEMO or some other external body, at a time of net negative demand curtail their dispatch into the grid and stop the use of their battery?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is nothing I can add to my previous answer, other than to say that if the installer does not provide all the information that is available then that installer, or potential installer or salesperson, is not doing his or her job properly.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Minister, I put it to you that you have not been up front. You have not told people that this impacts batteries. You have been caught unawares and now you are scrambling to try to fix this. The evidence I provide is your answer to this committee—by saying that you were in a rush, you had to get this done and now you are going to come back with further changes. I think that speaks volumes for this process.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Well, this is the same speech, again—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know you do not like it.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —and it is incorrect, absolutely incorrect, so let me just say again: there is a suite of changes that AEMO recommended that we make. We looked at that entire suite of changes. We intend to deliver more than we have been able to do already. It is not something that was unknown. There were some things that we needed to do by September. We have done those things by September.

We have done those things to protect the people of South Australia, to protect those who have solar panels, those who have solar panels and batteries and those who have neither. This is about actually protecting people trying to improve the protection to avoid blackouts. We have done this at AEMO's advice. AEMO said very clearly, 'If you do not do this by spring this year, by spring 2020, then you risk South Australians having blackouts because of not doing it.'

We took that advice. We decided that it was good advice. We decided that we would be different from the previous government. We decided that we would not ignore AEMO's advice, as the previous government did many times over the last decade or so. We decided that we would take that advice. We decided that we would implement as much of that advice as we could by spring this year, and the things that could not be implemented by spring this year would be implemented as soon as possible thereafter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am going to ask you one last question on this, minister, and hopefully you will give me an answer. Can you assure the committee that anyone who has an inverter governed by these new regulations—newly installed solar panels, a newly installed battery, a newly installed inverter with an agent—that if there is a time of net negative demand and you curtail their dispatch into the grid they will have access to their home battery?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is nothing I can add to my previous answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is either a yes or no answer.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is nothing I can add to my previous answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why won't you say yes or no? You look silly.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you have asked and the minister has answered both on a number of occasions, so we will move onto the next budget line. The minister wishes to speak?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The member for West Torrens can share his own opinions as loudly as he likes; it does not make them true.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On page 120 of the same budget paper, under highlights the budget paper states:

Continued the roll out of the Home Battery Scheme, supporting the installation of home battery systems on thousands of South Australian homes and paving the way for virtual power plants to enter the market.

How much of the $100 million Home Battery Scheme has been expended to date?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The operating expenditure for the 2020-21 budget period is $30,403,000, for 2019-20 it is $44,933,000—and that was the actual. The 2018-19 actual was $7,070,000.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you spent $40 million of it?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised just over $50 million: the seven and the 44 combined.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How many batteries have been installed?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am getting you the installed and committed figures. As at 31 October, 11,600 installations plus 1,700 committed and awaiting installation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So, 11,600; is that right?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And 1,700 of the 40,000?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When do you estimate you will reach your target of 40,000?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Within the four-year period.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Within the four-year period. So you are two years in and you have done a quarter?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How much of the—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Sorry, I need to correct that. We have done significantly more than a quarter.

The CHAIR: It is about 45 per cent by my quick maths.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, I thought you said you had a 40,000 target for batteries?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Forty thousand is how many we will do.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, and you have done—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We have done 13,300 out of 40,000.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation loan facility, how much has been accessed by South Australia? Do you monitor that? Are you given any data on that? No? That is not part of your scheme?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There was $100 million from Clean Energy Finance Corporation put to a company called RateSetter, now called Plenti, I believe, and that was in fact a very important part of the scheme. We thank the federal government for their contribution. So, $100 million initially, it is now $118 million, as you might know. We have put even more money into this very good scheme.

That money was there so that people could get loans for the balance of the purchase price of the battery and also loans for the installation of new solar if they wanted to. You could actually get new solar and a new battery with no money up front, so you get your subsidy for the battery plus your loan for the balance of the purchase price, plus the solar installation. The management of that money, the assessment of the creditworthiness of people—all of those sorts of things—are completely at arm's length from government. We do not oversee it, we do not manage it.

We give people information that they need so that they can go and get that support if it is right for them. The reason we wanted to do that was that we know that in many cases people can borrow that money—so no money up front for the complete package of solar and battery—and actually pay off the loan out of their savings from their electricity bills. It is a very positive thing that we would not have been able to do without the CEFC's support. But, again, the management of that $100 million is completely at arm's length from government.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The amount that an individual can access from the $100 million state government fund has decreased; is that correct?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We knew that one of the positive benefits of this scheme would be that it would bring down the cost of batteries, and it has certainly done that very significantly. From memory—and I could take some advice on this—the cost of batteries has come down in excess of $2,000 a unit or thereabouts.

We said up front, very publicly and very clearly to everybody who was interested in this program, that we would give more generous subsidies up front and then we would reduce the subsidies that were available to people over time as the cost of the batteries came down. We have done exactly that. We are very focused on not only the subsidy but the leftover purchase price for consumers.

We are doing exactly what we said we would do at the start, and anybody who has looked at this closely would know—in fact, it was articulated very clearly—that the subsidies that we offered to begin with would not be there throughout the entire program, so that is exactly what we have done.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Do AlphaESS Australia manufacture batteries in South Australia?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised yes. In fact, that advice is entirely consistent with my memory of what we put together. Another one of the very positive things that we wanted to put together was to bring manufacturers into the state, so we have brought into South Australia, in the southern suburbs, AlphaESS and, in the northern suburbs, Sonnen. They both started out assembling. The plan was always that they would start out assembling and they would move on towards manufacturing. I do not know off the top of my head exactly what stage in that transition AlphaESS is at down at Lonsdale. I have visited their plant. I have just been advised that they are manufacturing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What about Eguana Tech? Do they manufacture in South Australia as well?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes. I have just been advised two things. Number one is that Eguana is assembling. Also, the advice that I was just given, which was that AlphaESS are manufacturing, is not accurate. They are actually assembling also, still on the way towards manufacturing. Sonnen, on the old Holden site at Elizabeth, has already transitioned to the manufacturing phase. So two are assembling and one is manufacturing, and the two assembling ones are moving towards manufacturing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When will they begin to manufacture?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On page 121, your budget states an ambition to deliver an Electric Vehicle Action Plan. Is the government's new charging regime on electric vehicles part of that action plan or is that something separate?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The action plan is largely developed but not completed. We have $18.3 million in the budget, which is the largest amount of effort ever put to this in the state's history. Approximately $13 million of that is to go towards establishing, in partnership with industry, a charging network across the state. It will be the case that most people will be able to charge at home, whether they live in country or regional areas, but for people who want to use electric vehicles travelling—and I do not mean just to and from work around the metro area but travelling across the countryside—they will need fast chargers; they will deserve fast chargers. There is $13 million to partner with industry to establish that fast charging network.

There is $3 million approximately to develop the really smart charging, as opposed to the fast charging, so that you get that integration between the home and the electric vehicle. Just like the Home Battery Scheme, this is an extraordinarily positive—powerful, in fact—development. We know from experience overseas that when more and more electric vehicles are in the market the cost of electricity for all other consumers will start to decrease, because you have more electricity being used, so the cost of that electricity is averaged out across the poles and wires cost so that the average of that reduces. It will also help smooth out some of the peakiness of demand.

We have all seen the models that show people charging at the shopping centre or at the office car park during the day, then driving their car home and charging their home from their car in the evening. There are massive benefits there. Getting back to the action plan and what is in the budget, there are two key inhibitors, both of them real but one of them real perhaps almost as a concern rather than anything more real: one is the cost of electric vehicles and one is fear about range anxiety and the ability to travel far enough.

It is already known that most people could travel more than far enough with existing ranges on electric vehicles but we want to make it absolutely clear that people can travel anywhere in the state. From the Far West Coast all the way to the furthest point in the South-East of South Australia and up to the Northern Territory border, we want to have a fast charging network so that people can travel where they want to.

Another key component of our electric vehicle action plan is that we are also using our $80 million per year expense by Fleet SA on the government's fleet to transition towards electric vehicles. This will essentially use our buying power so that every vehicle that is turned over must be considered for replacement from petrol and diesel to an electric vehicle. It will not be the case that in every instance it will be right to do that. There might be a four-wheel drive or a large vehicle in the fisheries department that tows a heavy boat, and today there may not be an electric vehicle that is quite right for it.

But for your standard passenger car or your small SUV there are cars already which will be perfectly fit for purpose, and when doing the sums to look at the purchase price of the vehicle, if you look at the fact that petrol is not being paid for and if you look at all of the other costs along the way—every single cost along the way—there are already vehicles that would prove to be cheaper to transition to. Our Electric Vehicle Action Plan is addressing all of these things, and I look forward to being able to release it in full as soon as possible.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will ask you to take on notice then, if the electric vehicle taxation regime will be part of that action plan, which is what I asked you. The other question I have as a consequence of your answer is: will people who are using these new charging stations that you are building be charged a fee or will it be free?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The question you raised, I did not hear, so I am happy to address it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If you did not hear it, what were you answering?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I was telling you all about the imminent release of our action plan. That is what you were asking about. I heard 90 per cent of your question, but I did not hear the last couple of words.

The CHAIR: And good information for the committee to have. The current question before the minister is: will the charging stations be free?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Correct. It might well be that the member for West Torrens' mouth moved away from the microphone right at the end of the question. The question asked, which I am happy to address, with regard to the road user charge is that it will not be part of the action plan.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is part of the budget, so it will come to parliament as has already been made very clear. The member for West Torrens and all of his colleagues will have the opportunity to assess what comes to parliament with regard to an electric vehicle road user fee and decide whether they support it or they do not support it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We oppose it.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is no lack of opportunity—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am going to take great joy in opposing it.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —for the member for West Torrens to address it when it is there. Of course, if he does that, he will be flying in the face of some of his colleagues interstate who hold a very different position from his.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay. My question was: will you be charging a fee for using these new charging stations the government is investing in?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I expect that that will be the case.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can you give us a range, a cost?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, that is still to be determined. We have $13 million on the table to partner with industry. We know that there are not enough electric vehicles out in the market at the moment to warrant any private investor developing a significant charging network. We are wide open to whether we partner with one or one group of investors for the whole state's network or whether it is charger by charger by charger. We are happy to look at whatever the options are. We do accept that it will take some support from government to get this charging network established. Of course, what the return on that investment would be is going to be very much part of the package that gets put together.

There are places now where an electric vehicle can be charged for nix; there are places now where it costs. It would be completely impossible to ascertain what the range would be in exactly the same way as it would not be possible to model in advance the cheapest petrol at the bottom of the cycle in Adelaide compared with the most expensive in the most remote part of South Australia the top of the cycle.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am just going to ask a few mining questions now, if I could, Mr Chairman. I refer the minister to Budget Paper 3, page 111, Budget Measures Statement, energy and mining. It states:

The Department for Energy and Mining is dedicated to delivering the Government of South Australia's priorities in the mineral resources and energy sectors.

One of the dot points is:

the future development of the recently approved Rex Minerals' Hillside copper-gold project on Yorke Peninsula

Minister, do you believe that this mine can coexist with farming on Yorke Peninsula and do you support its development?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have made it very clear in front of the member for West Torrens and in front of everybody in this room that I have a strong belief that mining and the resources sector and the farming and agricultural sector can coincide. I have also made it very clear—not every single place, not every single project, not every single mine, not every single part of the state. It is very much looking at the specific project for the specific place. I am a very optimistic person: I believe it can be done. I believe it should be done.

Our two most important and longest standing industries in South Australia are the two that contribute the most to our economy and, in many other ways, to the social and community fabric in South Australia. It is not a matter of one or the other. It is a matter of wherever possible, wherever sensible, trying to find a way they can coexist. With regard to this specific project, that is still very much under investigation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So it is not approved?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The member for West Torrens understands that Rex's PEPR has been approved, but that does not mean that the mine can proceed. Rex still has a long way to go to prove that is the right project in the right place. Certainly the PEPR that was submitted to the government, the last version of the PEPR, is satisfactory with regard to that specifically, but that does not give the project or the company the opportunity to automatically proceed. There are a lot of other things that need to be done before it could be said whether or not this project should go ahead.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Good, because your budget papers say, and I quote:

Important mineral and energy resource projects that will contribute to economic growth in regional South Australia include…

the future development of the recently approved Rex Minerals' Hillside copper-gold project on Yorke Peninsula

It sounds to me like a big endorsement from the state government.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is certainly an endorsement from the Minister for Energy and Mining, without any doubt but, as I said, there is work still to be done to determine whether this project can go ahead. There is a lot to do beyond the PEPR being approved and, in fact, the member for West Torrens would understand this extremely well, having been a previous minister responsible for mining and resources. He knows, he knows very well, that there is a big difference between approving a PEPR and giving the proponent the right to move ahead with the project.

Certainly from my perspective, we will do everything that we possibly can. My department knows that it will do everything it possibly can to complete this investigation responsibly and thoroughly, with the interest of all affected parties well and truly in mind.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to page 116 of Budget Paper 4, Agency Statement, Volume 2, sub-program 1.3, highlights 2019-20, dot point 1. The government included in its highlights of 2019-20, last financial year, the major development declaration of a copper, gold, uranium and silver Olympic Dam upgrade of $3.5 billion. That was dumped by BHP. They spent the money somewhere else. I think they spent the money in Canada or some other jurisdiction. They took it out of South Australia and moved it elsewhere. Why is that included as a highlight?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The member for West Torrens knows very well that the project was not 'dumped'. The project needs to find another pathway. BHP have made it very clear that the BFX, as it is called, the brownfield expansion, that they hoped to pursue is not the right pathway. They made it very clear—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is not my question. My question is: why is it a highlight in the budget papers?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: They have made it very clear that they still intend to pursue this project another way. They still intend to put resources into this. It is not as the member suggests—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So it is a highlight?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —that the money got sent somewhere else. They are still working incredibly hard on this project. The fact that they want to do that is certainly very relevant. In regard to that being included in the budget, I have no doubt that at the time that it was all put together it was accurate. BHP were given major project status and they retained major project status in the government's eyes and on paper. The Minister for Planning is very involved in this and the Minister for Environment and Water is very involved in this. Our collegial cabinet government still considers this to be a tremendous opportunity for South Australia and will continue to work closely with BHP to make sure that it can be done and happen responsibly.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Eventually. You are not going to tell me why you put it in as a highlight? If I can move on because I will not get an answer to that, on page 114 of the same budget papers, one of your budget objectives is to lower domestic gas prices. What is the government's long-term gas price forecast and have you taken into account the commonwealth government's very generous gas incentives that they are offering and the state's own gas incentives? Can you give us a long-range forecast for the gas price?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You do not have one?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I do not have that information here with me at the moment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can return to the interconnector, the budget reference is page 120, the clean energy transition, and you talk about the interconnector. ElectraNet's submission to the Australian Energy Regulator justifies the need for an interconnector based on the long-term gas price being at $12 a gigajoule. Do you agree that that is a long-term forecast for gas prices in South Australia?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: As I said to you before, I will take it on notice to bring back what our long-term forecasts are.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think ElectraNet has demonstrated a lack of capacity to forecast its own costs accurately. It is not a reflection on the government; this is its work. The latest evidence of that is a blowout of 60 per cent for the cost of building the interconnector. When you first proposed it, it was going to be a $500 million interconnector, then it became $1.5 billion and now it is $2.4 billion.

Under the National Electricity Rules, if there are cost overruns, if they are approved at $2.4 billion, ElectraNet can pass on those cost overruns to South Australians. Do you have the power as minister under the National Electricity Rules to refuse ElectraNet the ability to pass on those cost overruns and will you exercise that power if it does exceed the $2.4 billion cost?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Very importantly, while it is completely accurate to say that ElectraNet's combined project cost on behalf of ElectraNet and TransGrid has gone from $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion, the net benefit to consumers has also gone from $66 per year to $100 per year retail residential.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are doubling down it is retail?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So from $66 per year to $100 per year average saving per household in South Australia.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Retail. Retail bills would decrease by $100?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: After paying for the cost of the interconnector, the repayment, after that is netted off there is a $100 per year saving to the average household in South Australia. That is what counts. The cost of the project has gone up and the benefit to South Australians has gone up as well. It is the benefit to South Australians that actually makes the difference.

In regard to potential cost changes up or down, the Australian Energy Regulator is looking at that at the moment. As we all know, the Australian Energy Regulator is assessing the contingent project applications that have gone in from TransGrid and from ElectraNet and is working through exactly this. They are the experts. They are the ones who will say that they give permission for this to be built as a regulated asset with the regulated return to the investors.

I am confident—in fact, I know—that they will not do that unless it is in the best interest of electricity consumers. The latest modelling is a $100 per year saving to South Australian households. There is not much more I can add to that. With regard to questions about national law and anything like that, it is entirely hypothetical. This is being assessed by the AER right now.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Will South Australia's emissions increase or decrease as a consequence of the interconnector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: South Australia's statewide emissions or electricity generation emissions?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Electricity generation emissions.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I strongly expect that they will decrease. We have a commitment to have 100 per cent net renewable energy generation by 2030. We have a commitment across our government, led by the Minister for Environment and Water, to decrease our state's emissions—not just in electricity generation—by 50 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. I think there is every reason to believe that emissions from electricity generation will decrease over the next few to several years during which the interconnector is built.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can refer you now to Budget Paper 3 again, table 2.4 on page 21 is a list of the government's savings targets across the forward estimates. Can you tell me the department's allocation of those savings targets? For example, table 2.4 says that the government's savings target in 2020-21 is $160 million, 2021-22 is $306.3 million, 2022-23 is $436.7 million and 2023-24 is $555.8 million. I already know what your increased efficiency dividends are because they are detailed in the budget but, as a proportion of that $160 million, what amount does your department have to find?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The 2020-21 state budget includes savings measures within the energy and mining portfolio of $8 million across the forward estimates. The department will meet these savings through $2.8 million of operating efficiency measures, $2.5 million of increased revenue through the introduction of mineral industry fees and cost recovery, and $2.7 million from industry through recovery of annual water levies.

In regard to last year's allocation, I am pleased to report that my department is on track to meet the $12.6 million in savings across the forward estimates allocated in the 2019-20 state budget, including the achievement of $2.5 million for the 2019-20 financial year. This is in addition to the $31.1 million allocated in the 2018-19 state budget.

Given the significant expenditure cuts in prior years, the department will again achieve its savings predominantly through revenue and cost recovery measures. The department's total savings requirement across the forward estimates from 2020-21 is $38.1 million. This comprises $20 million from the 2018-19 state budget, $10.1 million from the 2019-20 state budget extended across the forward estimates and $8 million in new savings from the current state budget from 2021-22.

The table, which I am just about to share with you, outlines these savings requirements. If I just go for the totals to try to save time, savings across the forward estimates are $6.7 million in 2018-19, $6.8 million in 2019-20, $9.3 million in 2020-21, $9.4 million in 2021-22, $9.6 million in 2022-23 and $9.8 million in 2023-24.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that a total of nearly $30 million since 2018-19, or is it more?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Since 2018-19, the total there is around $55 million, if I just do a quick sum in my head from 2018-19 through to and including 2023-24.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you have increased taxes and charges, on the industry that you regulate, by $55 million to meet your savings targets?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, I do not think that is a fair characterisation at all.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Your answer said that the majority of the savings had been achieved by revenue increases and cost recovery.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: But what you just suggested was that all the savings were coming from across that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How much of it is from revenue? Can you take that on notice?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, I have just been informed we need to read the omnibus questions again. I will take the minister's answer.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised approximately just over $20 million, but I am happy to return with more information.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, we are just clarifying things here. Before you go, are they the same omnibus questions?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, they are.

The CHAIR: Then we are okay; is that right? We do not need to do them. I will give you one last question, if you are quick.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is very generous of you; I will try to be quick. When BHP decided they were not going to proceed with their expansion, did you speak with the chief executive of BHP, or did you speak with the CEO of Olympic Dam? Who told you, and when did they inform you that it was not proceeding? Was it before the stock market announcement or after that?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Let me take it on notice with regard to the stock market announcement. I have no doubt that was done entirely appropriately. I myself spoke with the Acting Olympic Dam Asset President—I think that is the correct title of that person. The Premier and I and the Acting Olympic Dam Asset President were on a phone call with others from BHP.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do have to read the omnibus questions:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2020 and the projected actual FTE count for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the notional FTE job reduction target that has been agreed with Treasury for each year of the forward estimates?

Does the agency or department expect to meet the target in each year of the forward estimates?

How many TVSPs are estimated to be required to meet FTE reductions over the forward estimates?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

How much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2020-21, and for each of the years of the forward estimates period?

The top 10 providers of goods and services by value to each agency reporting to the minister for 2019-20; and

A description of the goods and/or services provided by each of these top ten providers, and the cost to the agency for these goods and/or services.

The value of the goods and services that was supplied to the agency by South Australian suppliers.

3. Between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which has either (1) been abolished and (2) which has been created?

4. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor; and

method of appointment?

5. For each department and agency for which the minister has responsibility:

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2019-20 and what was their employment expense?

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 and what is their estimated employment expense?

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2019-20 and budgeted cost for 2020-21.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contracts between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020.

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2020, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2019-20?

(b) What department funded these TVSPs? (except for DTF estimates)

(c) What number of TVSPs were funded?

(d) What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages funded?

(e) What is the breakdown per agency/branch of targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year) by FTEs?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2019 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2019, and what is the annual salary, and total employment cost for each position?

11. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many employees have been declared excess, how long has each employee been declared excess, and what is the salary of each excess employee?

12. In the 2019-20 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on operating programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2020-21?

13. In the 2019-20 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on investing or capital projects or programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2020-21? How much was sought and how much was approved?

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years:

(a) Name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Balance of the grant program or fund;

(d) Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(e) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(f) Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

(g) Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

15. For the period of 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

16. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

17. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2019 and please provide a breakdown of those costs.

19. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2019 and what is their purpose?

20. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

What savings targets have been set for each year of the forward estimates?

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target?

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The CHAIR: That is certainly a comprehensive list of omnibus questions. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department for Energy and Mining complete.

Mr ELLIS: I move:

That it be a resolution of this committee that the committee having been disrupted in its examination of the proposed expenditures referred to it, and being unable to complete its considerations on the same, recommends that the house refer the further examination of the proposed expenditures back to the committee.

Motion carried.

Mr ELLIS: I move:

That the draft interim report of the committee, incorporating the resolution that further examination of the proposed expenditures be referred back to the committee, be adopted.

Motion carried.

The CHAIR: Just before I go to the member for Narungga, I would like to thank the members of Estimates Committee A for their conduct during today, the ministers who were present and also all the advisers who took part. I know there is a lot of preparation that goes into these estimates hearing, so thank you for that.

Mr ELLIS: In celebrating those thanks, I move:

That the committee do now adjourn.

Motion carried; committee adjourned sine die.