House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Statutes Amendment (Energy Efficiency Shortfalls) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (ENERGY EFFICIENCY SHORTFALLS) BILL Final Stages Final Stages Hidden_Subproceeding:Final Stages The Legislative Council agreed not to insist on its amendments to which the House of Assembly had disagreed and made the alternative amendments in lieu thereof as indicated in the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly: No.1. Clause 4, page 4, after line 3—Insert: (11a)	If an amount is recovered as a shortfall penalty under this section, it must be applied under a scheme established by the Commission for 1 or more of the following purposes: (a)	to assist persons who may have failed to benefit from activities relating to energy efficiency on account of any electricity retailer's energy efficiency shortfall; (b)	to support other programs or activities to promote or support energy efficiency or renewable energy initiatives within South Australian households. No.2. Clause 5, page, 5 after line 36—Insert: (11a)	If an amount is recovered as a shortfall penalty under this section, it must be applied under a scheme established by the Commission for 1 or more of the following purposes: (a)	to assist persons who may have failed to benefit from activities relating to energy efficiency on account of any gas retailer's energy efficiency shortfall; (b)	to support other programs or activities to promote or support energy efficiency or renewable energy initiatives within South Australian households. Consideration in committee. The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move: That the alternative amendments of the Legislative Council be agreed to. Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly Mr WILLIAMS: I am delighted that the government has seen fit to accept the amendments as amended in the other place, and I note that the other place, in its wisdom, has obviously taken on board some of the comments made by the minister in this place. I will describe that. When the matter was first debated, I raised this matter of what would happen to any fines that were imposed by the scheme and suggested that they should be applied to energy efficiency schemes rather than being paid into general revenue. The minister argued against that position. The original amendment from the other place would have obliged the commission to establish a scheme and the minister argued that that would have incurred a cost, and I accept his point. He further argued that he did not expect there to be return of moneys by penalties under the act, and therefore, there should not be the cost of establishing a scheme. I note that the amendments that have subsequently been passed by the other place have come from the other way and said that, for all intents and purposes, we do not establish a scheme but that, if an amount is recovered as a shortfall penalty under this section, at that stage it must be applied to such works as were contemplated by the scheme that was contemplated by the original amendments. The opposition obviously supported this in the other place. It seems like a reasonable compromise on the part of the other place to adequately address the issue that was belatedly put forward by the minister. I am delighted that the other place and the government seem to have come to agree with the position that I originally put when we debated this matter in this house. The opposition supports this committee accepting these amendments from the Legislative Council. Motion carried.