STATUTES AMENDMENT (NATIONAL ELECTRICITY AND GAS LAWS—LIMITED MERITS REVIEW) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September.)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Waite, are you the lead speaker?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (17:40): Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unlimited time.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you. I have quite a bit to say on this bill and related matters. Can I firstly indicate that the opposition will be supporting the measure and that the Liberal Party and the Coalition, across the country, are very strong advocates for it.

The Statutes Amendment (National Electricity and Gas Laws—Limited Merits Review) Bill was introduced by the Deputy Premier on behalf of the energy minister on 26 September. The bill proposes to make amendments to national electricity law and national gas law by reforming the regulatory powers of the Australian Energy Regulator and functions of the Australian Competition Tribunal (the ACT) for determining energy network costs. Specifically, the bill seeks to remedy perceived weaknesses in the limited merits review process which have led to extraneous costs being attributed to network service providers (NSPs) by the tribunal.

South Australia is the lead legislator for national electricity and gas law, hence we have the bill before us today. The bill has been brought forward to remedy regulatory weaknesses that will flow through at a national level. Can I take this opportunity to thank officers of the department who took the time to brief me and my staff on the measure—that was very helpful indeed—and for all of the work that they have put into it.

One of the major causes of spiralling energy bills for small business and households has been the failure of the regulatory regime under Labor governments, both federal and state. The state Labor government has had since 2002 to take action through the Standing Council on Energy and Resources (the SCER) or through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to demand reforms to avoid market abuses so as to get bills down. This bill comes before the parliament in the 12^th year of a Labor state government. Energy bills have increased during that period by 133 per cent; that is Labor's badge of dishonour when it comes to electricity prices.

I want to put this bill in context because, instead of accepting that regulatory reform is the problem, the government keeps trying to blame others. In particular, the government keeps trying to blame privatisation. The government keeps going around and throwing around one-liners to the effect that the reason electricity bills have gone up is because the electricity assets were privatised in the life of the former Liberal government.

Now, before we can address the substance of this bill, we need to deal with its context. I just want to point out a few things to the house about that proposition, which the minister consistently bangs on about. Of course, he is completely ill-informed and completely wrong. Even his Labor Party colleagues disagree with him, and I will explain why. For a start, let me run through the long list of people who have dismissed this argument that has been put forward. Let us start with the Productivity Commission, which concluded in June the following:

Government ownership produces perverse interactions with the existing Rules, which are likely to lead to overinvestment and ineffective cost controls...The evidence appears to suggest that state-owned enterprises are less efficient than their private sector peers.

That is on page 257 of the Productivity Commission's report. Let me now turn to Infrastructure Australia, which argued for complete privatisation of all Australian electricity assets when it said this:

It is time to improve service delivery and the cost of energy by divesting publicly-owned energy infrastructure. This reform will remove the conflict of Government being both owner and regulator and can lead to more efficient overall management of energy infrastructure and competition in our energy markets.

That is on page 68 of its report. I remind the house that the National Electricity Market was introduced under a federal Labor government, under then prime minister Paul Keating. Once that decision was made, the nation was set on a course. Can I then indicate to the house that, as the Australian Energy Market Commission has demonstrated, the retail margin component for energy costs is approximately 4¢ per kilowatt hour of a total cost of 31.8¢ per kilowatt hour.

Assertions that retailers are 'parasites' do not stack up with the profits that retail companies are making in a volatile and changing market. I have heard the minister out there belting the retailers when, for example, issues have arisen in the media to do with electricity prices. You cannot blame the network companies or the retailers for working to the rules. It is the rules that are at fault, and that is partly why we are here discussing this bill.

Public ownership of electricity assets interstate (specifically, Queensland and New South Wales, and it was Labor governments that hung on like crikey to that public ownership) has not insulated those states from similar price increases and has placed additional burdens on taxpayers. As a comparison, South Australia's public ownership of water assets has coincided with even more substantial increases in water prices (11 times CPI, compared with electricity prices at five times CPI).

If you want a snapshot of what our electricity bills would look like if this current Weatherill Labor government still owned and controlled our electricity assets, look what has happened to water. It is up 257 per cent. Look at the debacle of the desal plant and just imagine for a moment if this lot owned and were operating our electricity assets. Imagine if they had to build new power stations. Imagine if they had to invest and borrow—

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite. You will withdraw the term 'this lot' and substitute something else.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: This Labor government.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The fact is: state debt would be even higher than its present record and the deficit, approaching $1.4 billion, would be even higher; and the reason is that the state government would have had to pay for what is now funded by ElectraNet, by SA Power Networks and by electricity generators, as well as trying to run a retail operation. That is before we get to the issue of wind power and if the government owned all that.

The government claims there is $5 billion waiting to come in: would it be paying for that? We are virtually bankrupt. We would be completely bankrupt. It is simply a nonsense proposition. It does not end there. The review of the Limited Merits Review Regime stage 2 report also touches on this subject when it says on page 8:

The question of privatisation of publicly owned networks should be revisited. The Australian regulatory system, including the recommended developments of merits review proposed in this Report, can be expected to function more effectively with privately owned NSPs (the main features of the system having been originally designed for the regulation of privately owned monopolies). Among other things, privatisation would eliminate the almost inevitable conflicts that arise when management of publicly owned NSPs are, in effect, subject to simultaneous supervision by different public institutions—the economic regulator, the minister representing the shareholder interest, and possibly the relevant energy minister—each independently pursuing overlapping public policy objectives.

The very review that has led to this bill has reinforced yet again that privatisation does not work in the national electricity market. Despite that, the minister keeps repeating it. Do not worry; all media will have this Hansard; all media will have these references. They know you cannot be believed when you make these claims; they simply do not stack up. Of course, that is before we even go to utterances from Labor figures themselves. I am looking at Kevin Rudd's Press Club speech full transcript. He was quite critical of state governments who own electricity assets. He said:

Number one: Domestic electricity price regulation in Australia, and the impact of the current carbon price as well as the future availability of competitively priced domestic gas supplies are high on the agenda.

Australian electricity prices are too high by global standards.

This affects the competitiveness of all firms large and small. Of course it also affects individual consumers.

And then Kevin Rudd said this:

The primary reason for the hike in electricity prices appears to be the current system of national electricity regulation which has allowed excessive rates of return for publicly-owned transmission and distribution utilities which have become cash cows for various state and territory governments.

You only need to look at what the former Labor prime minister said when he belled the cat on state governments owning electricity assets. Look at how much the current state government rips out of SA Water in the way of dividends to just have some sort of a snapshot as to what would be going on if it still owned the electricity assets. It would be doing exactly what the governments in Queensland and New South Wales are doing, and that is raking in the cash. It would be an absolute mess.

This government has already delivered ruin. If it owned our electricity assets it would be even worse. However, it was not only Kevin Rudd: it was the former Labor energy minister and prime minister Gillard who, in the Energy White Paper 2012, made it crystal clear. This is a federal Labor government policy paper—its 2012 white paper. It said this about privatisation, and I am quoting directly from page 113 of the report, 'the Productivity Commission...estimated that the reforms have increased Australia's GDP by 2.5 per cent', that is, the national electricity market reforms.

The report goes on to say that 'a competitive and interconnected wholesale market involving business-on-business competition supported by more transparent and nationally regulated networks' is what federal Labor wanted to see more of, and 'a competitive and efficient wholesale electricity market with substantially improved efficiencies and generation...utilisation rates'. Then, in a section in the white paper on page 114 the federal Labor government talks about 'misperceptions about reform', and it says:

One common misperception is that reforms have led to higher prices. Energy prices in Australia...remained stable and low through the late 1990s to around 2007. Recent price rises largely reflect a combination of increasing production costs and the high point of an investment cycle in Australia's energy infrastructure.

The white paper goes on:

A second common misconception is that deregulation means a lack of oversight and...loss of consumer protections.

It then goes on to say:

Further improvements are needed to the regulatory frameworks for networks to minimise cost pressures...

And, importantly, it says this—this is Labor's white paper—and I quote:

Government ownership of energy assets may create the potential for conflict in both policy and operational decisions.

You have it from two Labor prime ministers, a former federal Labor energy minister, a former federal Labor government's policy statement, and about every other respected commentator in the country.

Anyone who is arguing, as the minister does from time to time, that privatisation is the cause of energy bill increases is simply dreaming. They are so out of touch with reality it is not funny. I just say to the current government, wake up to yourselves. It is nearly a 20-year-old argument, get with the plan.

[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis]

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I want to turn now to the sensitive matter of how the minister and the government have handled this bill to this point. The opposition have made some interesting observations about the bill because the poor regulatory arrangements that this bill seeks to rectify are the root cause of the problem. This bill is before the parliament because Labor's regulatory regime has seen the system rorted and consumers overcharged for years.

Since 2002, as I have mentioned, Labor has had control of the regulatory levers and it is now clear that during that period the rules have allowed network companies to act other than in the long-term interests of consumers; that is the bottom line. The current limited merits review regime was introduced by Labor governments on 1 January 2008. We had Labor governments coast to coast, federal and state. Since then it has been responsible for $3.3 billion in additional charges awarded by the Australian competition tribunal—charges that have flowed through to consumers.

The bill we have before us today seeks to rectify those sloppy arrangements that Labor governments entered into in 2008. The bill is a clear attempt to catch up on regulatory failure by Labor which has cost bill payers dearly, both small businesses and households, for decisions that in most instances have been made on legalistic technicalities by the tribunal rather than genuine errors by the regulator. I will go into that in a bit more detail in a minute.

To give you an example of this failure and how it has impacted upon South Australians, I point you to an article by The Advertiser in May which was headed 'South Australians to pay average $1270 a year as electricity prices to rise by 10 per cent'. That was on 26 May 2011. The article by Cameron England goes on to explain that the average family will have to pay $120 extra per year from 1 July 2011. The reason for that was that ETSA Utilities, as it was then, was awarded by the tribunal an additional $301 million over five years, costing the average South Australian $120. The tribunal was able to overrule the regulator's determination in this instance to the tune of $301 million based on the value of ETSA's regulated asset base and the value of its imputation tax credits.

This is one of the examples that arises in background to this bill as a decision that probably should never have been made. That was not why the tribunal was set up and that is explained and I will go into more detail in a moment, yet that directly resulted in a $120 per year increase for the average household thanks to the sloppy rules that Labor set up in 2008. My question is: where has the minister been? Where has the government been since 2008? Why did we set up these sloppy rules in the first place? Why weren't we more diligent at the time? Why has it taken so long to get this bill into the parliament? It is now 2013—a very long time since 2008. This legislation, by its very nature, casts doubt on previous decisions made by this state Labor government.

The Standing Council on Energy and Resources comprised of ministers from around the country has initiated this process, and it is determined to amend the sloppy laws—rules and regulations that weaken the Australian Energy Regulator to the benefit of network companies. I emphasise that you cannot blame the players for playing the game to the rules, but you can raise concerns about the rules. Labor should not have allowed these existing rules to be introduced in 2008. They were found wanting, and the parliament is now being asked to clean up the mess which has seen electricity bills increase for consumers under questionable arguments.

There has been a lack of openness and accountability and a second-guessing of the regulator which needs to come to an end. This bill is an admission of Labor's failure, and that is why I raised this issue on talkback radio in recent days, and I hope the minister is listening, because I made many of the points I have just put down on the record, but I also made the point that, since coalition ministers have joined the SCER in recent years—and it has been over a period of years—they have been enthusiastic about these reforms. I said on 891 that we will be supporting the bill enthusiastically 'because it's been driven largely by coalition state ministers around the council of energy ministers pushing this forward.' And I certainly asserted—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's not true.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, the minister just said that wasn't true, and I am going to move on to that very issue because the minister—

The SPEAKER: The minister is warned for the second time for interjecting out of his seat.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The minister says that wasn't true. I am glad he has put that on the record, because the minister who, apparently, was at some sort of function that morning flew out to get on the phone. I do not know if he heard the whole interview. Perhaps he can tell me. Maybe he just heard the last few words. But his opening lines were these, Mr Speaker. David Bevan says:

Let's go to Tom Koutsantonis now because he has just called and we do appreciate him fitting us in.

Abraham says:

Is this too little too late, minister?

And the minister says this:

...the limited merits review was opposed by all the Coalition states.

He then says:

It's disingenuous and dishonest of Mr Hamilton-Smith to say that.

Now, can I tell you, Mr Speaker, I take great offence at being called dishonest and I am going to dwell on this for a moment and explore who has actually been dishonest, because I made my statements on radio based on research and contact that I had had with others. I thought I had better check, because what the minister has said, categorically, publicly, is that the limited merits review was opposed by all coalition states and he has just told the house the same thing when he said, 'That's not true.'

So, he has repeated that to the house, and I gather you stand by that, minister? You said it a few minutes ago. You have now told the parliament that. Now, I want to draw the house's attention to who is on the SCER. I want to read their names, because I came away from that interview and I contacted their offices. The Hon. Ian Macfarlane, the Minister for Industry—totally and absolutely supportive.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Waite has just intimated that the Hon. Ian Macfarlane was present at the SCER that decided—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I finish—that decided the limited merits review. He wasn't. He is misleading the parliament.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The allegation of misleading can only be made by substantive motion, so I invite the minister to withdraw the allegation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I withdraw the term 'misleading', sir, absolutely.

The SPEAKER: Did the member for Waite wish to correct the record about the presence or otherwise of Ian Macfarlane at the meeting, or does he say he did not say Ian Macfarlane was at SCER?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I made no statement that Ian Macfarlane was at any meetings. I am simply reading out the names of the ministers who were on the SCER. I am reading it out.

The SPEAKER: So, just to be clear, Mr Macfarlane is on the SCER, but he wasn't at this particular meeting?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I'm not sure which particular meetings he is referring to, and I don't want to get into a debate across the floor.

The SPEAKER: Well, you're in a debate already.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: He was raising a point of order as to what was the standing order? I made no reference to any meeting, Mr Speaker. So, if I can just continue. I didn't make any reference to any meeting, minister.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Fine, we'll check the Hansard.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You're making things up.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I take offence to that, sir, and ask him to withdraw.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, you're making things up. This is not meant to be a debate, Mr Speaker. I am speaking. If he wants to make it a debate—

The SPEAKER: We're on a second reading, so we are in a debate, but the minister can make these points in reply, perhaps when he is in possession of the Hansard. But I do caution the member for Waite about alleging that the minister is 'making things up'. That might be interpreted as imputing that the minister has misled the house. The member for Waite may wish to withdraw.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have not made any statement that warrants withdrawal, sir.

The SPEAKER: Very well.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am simply making the point that—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I'm getting onto the sort of—I will deal with that very issue in a moment, minister. The Hon. Ian Macfarlane—I contacted his office, I had contact with him prior—is fully supportive of the measure. In New South Wales, the Hon. Chris Hartcher, the Minister for Resources and Energy—his office is fully supportive of the measure. In Victoria, I have met the Hon. Nicholas Kotsiras, Minister for Energy and Resources, and not only were they fully supportive of the measure in Victoria—and I note from yesterday's Hansard the minister made some reference to Victoria in some way having dragged the chain or made some suggestion that they may not have moved very quickly on this. This is what the Victorian government told me—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That is not what I said.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I've got your Hansard, so I'll read it back to you. What the Victorian government has said is this:

The Victorian government advocated for changes to the regulatory regime to get better outcomes for consumers. Victoria supports the recent changes to the regulatory rules which make it easier for the regulator to ensure consumers get a fair share. The independent panel of the merits review process recently supported Victoria's position that the current appeals system is weighted against consumers and needs reform.

I will now read from a media release dated 11 July 2012 from the Victorian government, which says this:

The Minister for Energy and Resources Michael O'Brien today welcomed the release of the report that supports Victoria's view that energy consumers are being disadvantaged by the appeals system for the regulatory decisions on the energy network charges.

This is the important bit, a direct quote from the minister in Victoria:

The Victorian Coalition Government has been a leader in pushing for changes to the regulatory regime for network charges to deliver better results for households who are facing rising energy prices.

'A leader'—every minister's office I contacted refuted what the minister said on 891 radio. He said they opposed it. In fact, his exact words were to the effect that they had opposed the measures. In fact, quoting directly, 'The limited merits review was opposed by all Coalition states.' Well, I have proven you wrong in Victoria, you are wrong in New South Wales, you are wrong federally, and now let's go to Queensland, because I have contacted the office of the Hon. Mark McArdle, the Minister for Energy and Water Supply. They strongly supported it.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Did they?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Have a look at their media releases. Well, if you're saying—and I will be talking to The Australian, because I am sure these ministers want to know what you have said about them on 891 radio, and you have repeated it in the house. You have accused them all of basically opposing this measure and they have told their constituents they support it.

But it gets better—because every decision of the SCER is a unanimous decision, a consensus decision. Every single Coalition minister voted for the measure by consensus. Not only did they vote for the measure, not only have they made public statements saying, in the case of Victoria, that they were leaders on the issue, but they have completely and utterly refuted what the minister said on 891 radio.

I am just repeating it because I want to throw it down his throat: the limited merits review was opposed by all Coalition states. He goes on to say that it was disingenuous and dishonest for Mr Hamilton Smith to suggest that was so. I will tell you what, minister: who do you think is being dishonest, Mr Speaker? I will ask you. I have checked with all those ministers; I have their phone numbers, I will make them available to the minister. I have already spoken to the journalists on 891 and pointed this out to them.

They all say they voted for the measure—it is on the record. They say they led on the issue, in the case of Victoria in particular, but others as well, and that they were enthusiastic supporters. He is saying they opposed the measure. Who is telling the truth and who is making it up? I will tell the minister something: the first person who rang me, when he said on 891 radio that I was dishonest for saying that the Coalition ministers had supported this measure, was my wife. The second person who rang me was my mother, and they said, 'He's just called you a liar.' I said, 'I don't think he used the term "liar". I'll check the Hansard.'

But I will tell you this: when you say publicly that someone is dishonest, it is just as good as calling them a liar. What I have established here is that the lie originated over there. The lie came from the minister. It is provable: I can get written statements, I can get the voting record and the public statements. In most cases, these ministers took the decisions to their cabinets. You have said something; not only is it untrue but you either said it deliberately or you were just foolish and got it wrong. It might be better to be thought of as a fool than a liar.

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, Mr Speaker, I am listening attentively.

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite will withdraw the choice that the minister knowingly uttered an untruth.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am happy to withdraw any suggestion to that effect, Mr Speaker: only the minister knows the answer to that question. I simply make the point that the facts are quite different from what was said on 891.

I suggest to the minister that he take a leaf out of the Premier's book. The Premier suggested that ministers and members of parliament should be a little more civil, that they should conduct themselves a little more honourably. I can tell you that when you go on 891 ABC radio and you say what the minister said, and the facts are demonstrably wrong, you have it so wrong. To then throw around that sort of abuse I think is an utter disgrace, and I will make sure that the people of West Torrens get to hear about it. I would suggest that a little bit of decency would go a long way, and I also signal to the minister that, if this is the way he wants to play the game, if he wants to throw a brick, we will back up the truck.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Just conduct yourself decently, and I ask you not to accuse, on radio, anyone of lying or being dishonest, particularly when you demonstrably have your facts so patently wrong. I would say that sometimes it is just better to be thought of as a fool. Perhaps it was not deliberate. Either way if we are going to debate these very important matters such as we are debating today, let us do it from a basis of integrity. That is the point that I am making.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Coming from you, that's a bit rich.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I can tell you, I have set a certain standard for myself since I have been here.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Really?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, and I wish you would set a high standard for yourself too.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite will be seated. The leader is furiously attracting my attention to draw my attention to a breach of the standing orders and there are two I can see: one is that the leader is interjecting out of his seat; the second is that the minister is on his final warning.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I want to wind up this point but I think it needs to be made. I want to make this simple request of the minister as one honourable member to another and that is simply this: he has made these comments on 891 radio publicly, they are demonstrably wrong and I ask that he does the decent thing and goes on ABC radio and apologises. He has made a statement that is factually wrong. I can get the letters to that effect. He has made a statement about me which I find highly offensive, which is not true and which is provably not true in this instance. From time to time we might disagree about the interpretation of events; it does not mean that people are being dishonest. It simply means that we may have a different version of what is going on.

There is no need for that sort of abuse. I ask him to do the decent thing because there are some other alternatives. I could get the letters from the various ministers, I could come in here and lead a substantive motion that the minister lied, and I could prove that the statements that he has made I believe on 891 are incorrect. I could get statutory declarations from each of those ministers and I reckon they would provide them. I can make as big an issue of this in the parliament as the minister wants. That is one option. There are other options. I believe those remarks to have been defamatory and actionable. Of course the minister would hide behind the Crown.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Actionable?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I have a lot of options. Or the minister can do the decent thing and apologise on 891 radio having clearly got his facts wrong. I hope that the Premier's staff are listening because it is just a question of how much of an issue they want to make of the energy minister's remarks on 891 in respect of whether or not they were accurate at all. It is really up to the government. If they want to make a big issue of it, fine, but a simple apology would be welcome. I do not want to dwell on the issue, and I will move on to the substance.

The Hon. P. Caica: You have.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well it needed dwelling on, member for Colton, because I tell you what, if the member for Colton heard the member for West Torrens get on 891 radio and accuse him of being dishonest and then had a call from his wife and his mother saying, 'He's just called you a liar,' I think he would be upset. Would he? Would he be upset, member for Colton?

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I am sorry to hear that but I ask you to reflect on that before you interject.

The SPEAKER: Point of order from the minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to Hansard from yesterday where I say this—

The SPEAKER: This is not going to be an impromptu speech, is it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, sir—'First and foremost, if I caused the member—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: No, I will hear the minister and then I will rule on it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He says I have not apologised. I say, 'First and foremost—

The SPEAKER: Minister, the question of whether the member has said something he should withdraw or is factually incorrect—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Factually incorrect, sir.

The SPEAKER: —is something that you can reply to in your reply speech. It is not a point of order. I mean if members who made statements in debate that were not factual could be pulled up on points of order, Hansard would be nothing but a patchwork of points of order, so I suggest the minister reserves his point for his speech in reply. The member for Waite.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: My point to the minister is that he made these statements on 891 radio and I am asking him to apologise for them on 891 radio. That is the point I made to him yesterday and—

The SPEAKER: I think the member said he would not dwell on the matter.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I am trying to move on—

The SPEAKER: He has been speaking about it in the 20 minutes I have been in the chair.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —but the minister's interjections offer an opportunity to continue to dwell. I suggest he remain silent. Getting back to the substance of the measure, because it is a very important bill which warrants consideration, I want to refer to what the Australian Energy Regulator said about these measures on 25 May 2011, when it stated:

The Australian Competition Tribunal on 19 May 2011 handed down its decision on the appeals by the South Australian (ETSA Utilities) and Queensland electricity distribution network operators (Energex and Ergon Energy), and has allowed them to recover additional revenues.

It then goes on to say that $850 million would be recovered, being $301 million from ETSA, $298 million from Energex and $243 million from Ergon. These are further examples of where costs were passed onto electricity consumers and small businesses that need not have been passed on. It continues:

The Tribunal also found that the AER made errors in relation to ETSA Utilities easements valuation, and Ergon Energy's non system capital expenditure, labour cost escalation rates and the control mechanism for alternative control quoted services.

This media release highlights and provides further elucidation on why the system is not working. That is why the Australian Energy Regulator, in a document titled, 'The state of the energy market 2012', talked about the need for reform, stating:

In September 2011 the AER submitted proposals to the AEMC, seeking changes to the energy Rules governing how network businesses are regulated to better promote efficient investment in, and use of, energy services for the long term interests of consumers...The AER argued:

the Rules constrained the extent to which it could make holistic and independent assessments of a network's proposed expenditure needs

the automatic roll-in of all capital expenditure—including amounts above AER allowances—to a network's asset base created incentives for overinvestment

inconsistent approaches to setting the cost of capital for electricity and gas network businesses, along with constraints on the AER in setting costs that reflect current commercial practices, led to inflated cost estimates

the consultation arrangements hindered effective stakeholder engagement.

In effect, the AER heralded the problems that are clearly evident in this set of regulations. Others have pointed to the need for reform, no more so than the Productivity Commission, which deals with this issue on pages 773, 774 and 775 of its report on the functioning of the market. It talks about a host of regulatory failures. The Productivity Commission's report is an excellent bit of work. It clearly signals that there is a need for further reform and further legislation. This is just one step in the right direction. I will not read into the Hansard the extensive comment that the Productivity Commission makes, I have referred to the pages, but I would commend it to the house.

Then, of course, the most informative of information has come from the SCER itself. Firstly, in December 2012, when the SCER indicated that it welcomed the final report of the expert panel's review of the limited merits review scheme. The SCER agreed with the panel's finding and in light of the panel's recommendation it stated the following:

In light of the Panel's recommendation that SCER provide a clear statement of policy about the merits review regime, SCER:

Affirms that, in interpreting the National Electricity Objective and the National Gas Objective, the long-term interests of consumers (with respect to price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply) are paramount in the regulation of the energy industry.

Affirms that the objective of the review framework, in common with the objectives of the laws, is to ensure that relevant decisions promote efficient investment, operation, and use of energy infrastructure, and are consistent with the revenue and pricing principles of the National Electricity Law and National Gas Law, in ways that best serve the long-term interests of consumers.

Considers that, consistent with the Australian Administrative Law Policy Guide, achieving the most preferable decision in the pursuit of this objective should be the aim of both regulator and review body alike.

Considers furthermore that the long-term interests of consumers should be the sole criterion for determining the preferable decision, both at the initial decision-making stage and at merits review.

Considers that the review process should promote an accountable and high performing regulator such that material error is minimised and notes that the focus on the correction of selected errors is not equivalent to—and may not in itself lead to—the achievement of the most preferable overall decision in the long term interests of consumers.

Considers that a well designed limited merits review process can achieve the policy objectives outlined [therein].

The SCER should be commended for those decisions back in 2012, which of course were elaborated upon in more detail in its discussion paper of 6 June 2013, where the SCER's policy position was made clear: that there needed to be a limited merits review test, and it should be based on the applicant (that is, the company that wants to overturn a regulator's decision) having to demonstrate that:

...the original decision-maker made an error of fact, an incorrect exercise of discretion or was unreasonable in its original decision and make a prima facie case that addressing this would lead to a materially preferable outcome in the long term interests of consumers...

The SCER went on to say that the Australian Competition Tribunal (the Tribunal):

...assesses whether, taking into account any interlinked matters, addressing the grounds and the interlinked matters would deliver a materially preferable outcome (in the context of the overall decision) in the long term interests of consumers, as set out in the National Electricity Objective (NEO) or National Gas Objective (NGO).

The SCER also outlined its policy position in regard to the role of the regulator:

For regulatory determinations, the regulator must:

develop a record of its regulatory process to be made available to the Tribunal for reviews; and

include in its final determination an explanation of the interlinkages between different component parts of its decision and how its overall decision is in the long term interests of consumers, in accordance with the NEO or NGO.

In addition, the regulator, in regulatory determination processes, and the Tribunal, in review processes, must:

where there is discretion around a range of decisions, make the overall decision that, on balance, it considers is materially preferable in terms of serving the long term interests of consumers as set out in the NEO or NGO...

This is the point that keeps coming out. The whole idea in the first place was that the long-term interest of consumers be protected. What this bill will do is ensure that occurs. The previous arrangements set up in 2008 did not. And, the SCER continues:

undertake appropriate consultation with relevant users or consumer groups served by the network business that is the subject of the regulatory determination.

Seeking leave to appeal is also mentioned by the SCER:

In applying for leave to appeal, applicants will be required to establish:

an error of fact, incorrect exercise of discretion or unreasonableness in the original decision; and

that there is a prima facie case that correcting the alleged error, incorrect use of discretion or unreasonableness will result in a materially preferable outcome compared to the original decision for delivering the long term interests of consumers as set out in the NEO and NGO...

In assessing an application for leave to appeal, the Tribunal will determine whether the applicant has established an error of fact, incorrect exercise of discretion or unreasonableness and made a prima facie case...

The SCER goes on to talk about the role of the tribunal in undertaking a review, and again emphasises the point that 'The tribunal must demonstrate that it provides, compared to the original decision, a materially preferable outcome in the long term interests of consumers,' and all of these are good things. The SCER continues:

The tribunal would generally be limited to information that was before the original decision-maker—

Another good move—

is pertinent to the matter being heard;

was not unreasonably withheld from the original decision maker; and

could reasonably be expected to have been considered by the regulator in its regulatory determination process.

Parties to Reviews, Costs, and Consumer Participation—

Apparently the practice has been that the review process was one in which the costs could be passed on, ultimately to consumers. Under these new arrangements:

All participants in reviews will generally be required to bear their own costs associated with participation in a review process. Network businesses will not be able to pass costs associated with reviews through to consumers as part of their regulated revenues, either prospectively or following a review.

Barriers to user and consumer participation will be addressed in a number of ways, including a record of the regulator; the tribunal being required, as the regulator is required, to consult with users; the removal of risk that users and consumers may have legal costs incurred by network businesses; and the removal of the provision that small users and consumers may have costs awarded against them.

Changes to the tribunal's functions in legislation beyond the national energy laws are also dealt with in this 6 June 2013 discussion paper by the SCER, when it talks about competition and consumer regulations to be amended to ensure the provisions that apply to the energy sector allow the tribunal to take a less formal and more investigative approach. In essence, the regulatory arrangements set up in 2008 are simply not working and need to be fixed.

Network costs are a major driver of electricity costs and have been for many years. Energy consumption has moderately declined while investment in networks has continued to grow substantially, leading to higher energy costs per kilowatt hour. A weak regulatory environment has led to the phenomenon of gold-plating and unjustified costs being passed on to consumers. There have been some underlying pressures on the NSPs to invest in network renewal, but not to the extent which the regulatory environment has allowed. The limited merits review process is one of many methods in which NSPs have sought to inflate their usage charges for electricity consumers.

In regard to cost determinations, in accordance with the national electricity and gas law, the AER is tasked with making a determination every five years on the total pass-through costs it will charge retailers and ultimately consumers for the use of energy networks. The three relevant AER determinations for South Australian consumers are: the SA Power Networks (formerly ETSA) 2010-15 distribution determination, the ElectraNet 2013-18 transmission determination and the Envestra (SA) gas network—Access arrangement 2011-16 determination. These determinations follow a contestable twelve-month process and require substantial input and thorough consultation with stakeholders at four separate stages: the initial proposal, the draft decision, the revised proposal and the final determination.

Regarding the limited merits review process, following the cost determination process by the AER, NSPs may seek a limited merits review at the Australian Competition Tribunal, as I have mentioned, to dispute the AER's determination. In considering that review, the ACT can resolve that the determination was incorrect. It is the view of the SCER, as I have mentioned, that this process is not working as intended (and I have given the reasons why) and has been subject to gaming by NSPs. I emphasise again that you cannot blame the players for playing to the rules, but you can ask questions about whether the rules are doing the job they need to do.

Since the limited merits review process was introduced in January 2008, there have been 22 AER determinations reviewed under the process which have attributed an additional $3.3 billion to NSPs for reasons that I have mentioned previously, mostly based, in the opinion of many, on legalistic technicalities rather than genuine errors. Most relevant to SA, the ETSA May 2010 determination was challenged, and I have given the background to that.

The system clearly needed review. The COAG body—Standing Council on Energy and Resources (the SCER)—that I have spoken of resolved to investigate the market mechanisms. I have read some of their findings into the Hansard.

The process was led initially by Professor George Yarrow, the Hon. Michael Egan and Dr John Tamblyn. The Review of the Limited Merits Review Regime found that the act was not being enforced as intended by the AER and the ACT due to flaws in the legislation. The authors resolved to maintain the AER and the ACT, but to broaden their focus and to strengthen their regulatory powers and functional capacity.

The merits review process, as I have mentioned, was seen to be unduly narrow, which created no-go areas for reviewers. The legal process was found to unfairly advantage NSPs due to 'excessive appeals activity', with a focus on legal processes rather than the long-term interests of consumers, all of which I have covered. The bill itself seeks to fix all of this.

Referring my remarks specifically to the bill, can I say that the AER's and ACT's functions are more finely and explicitly directed to achieve a preferable, reviewable regulatory decision that supports the NEO. The bill also requires that, in making a determination, the AER must develop a record of the decision-making process, including all documents created by the regulator or submitted by stakeholders.

The bill also requires that, before the ACT provides a review, the applicant must establish a substantive prima facie case that an amended determination would result in a materially preferable decision to support the NEO. The ACT's narrow, quasi-judicial role is expanded for the purposes of NSP disputes and is provided investigative and exploratory powers. The ACT reviews must now be made in accordance with the same principles on which the original AER determination was made rather than peripheral or technical variations, and the ACT's capacity to consider additional documents or evidence not previously made available to the AER is made more specific.

A further improvement the bill makes is that considerations must now include how evidence interrelates to take an holistic view of the determination to avoid reviews being varied on the basis of minor technicalities. A variation to the AER determination will only be made on the basis that such a variation would result in materially preferable decisions to support the long-term interests of consumers—and this keeps coming out; that is the key. The ACT will have the capacity to defer a decision back to the AER, and legal costs incurred in the NSP in pursuit of a review may not be passed on to consumers.

The SCER also resolved that the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 be amended to ensure that, in regard to energy sector decisions, the ACT is allowed to apply investigative processes. If these measures are implemented, they will be subject to a subsequent SCER review in 2016.

I note that the government and the other parties, through the SCER, have consulted on the matter fairly extensively. The review process responses indicate that consumers strongly supported the initiative. I conducted some consultation of my own. I note that some of the network companies were a little less enthusiastic than some of the consumer groups, but no-one proposed amendments to the measure. I understand that would have been a problem, anyway, in respect of us being lead legislators, given that this will flow through.

The concerns raised by energy user associations and consumer advocates appear to be broadly reflected in the bill. Submissions made by former ACT president Ray Finkelstein—his tenure was from 2008 to 2011—were supportive of reform of the ACT in regard to the national electricity and gas laws, particularly in regard to its procedures and capacity to obtain and seek evidence. NSPs and energy generation companies did not favour any substantial changes to the existing regime.

In summary, the regulatory reform has been slow in coming forward. I think Labor governments, both state and federal, need to ask themselves how they got it so wrong in 2008 and why it has taken so long to fix these regulatory arrangements, because it is the number one issue in terms of getting people's price down.

The state Liberals, when our leader Steven Marshall announced his energy policy a few weeks ago, made that very point: regulatory reform, monthly billing, smart meters and abolishing the REES, the Residential Energy Efficiency Scheme, which is past its use-by date. We are certainly of the view that the main key to getting people's bills down is regulatory reform.

The first question I ask any stakeholder who comes to see me on energy issues, particularly if they are in the distribution, generation or retail business, is simply this: how can we get people's electricity bills down? That is the number one question because I think that needs to be the challenge the political class embraces going forward from this point because, simply, the rises we have seen are unsustainable.

This bill aims to remedy that regulatory failure. The asymmetry of resources and technical expertise means that NSPs have been able to gain the limited merits review process to extract considerable additional funds through the tribunal on technical and legal arguments, rather than on the overall national electricity objective which guides the AER's original determinations. I do not blame them for doing that; they are commercial entities, as I have mentioned several times. The rules are the rules. They are playing to the rules. What this bill will do is tighten the rules, and we welcome that.

While errors of process and judgement made by the AER will continue to be subject to review under the ACT, the process does indeed need reform. This bill seeks to broaden the functional powers of the tribunal so that it may act in the long-term interests of consumers. Whether the measure works remains to be seen, but it should be attempted, and for that reason the opposition commends the bill. We do not intend to amend it, and we would like to see its swift passage.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (18:41): First and foremost, I want to thank the opposition for supporting these national reforms. I think it is always important, when a state like South Australia is the lead legislator on important matters that affect the entire nation, that we do have bipartisan support. I thank the opposition for supporting it.

Let's talk about honesty. The member for Waite said that his wife and mother were distraught that I called him dishonest on radio. He raised that today and said, 'Why won't you apologise? Why won't you say you're sorry?' Yesterday, when he raised it with me for the first time that he was offended by me saying what he claimed was 'dishonest', I said this in the parliament, 'First and foremost, if I have caused the member any offence I apologise.'

I did not think I was being dishonest, but if he felt that that remark was offensive I apologised, yet he comes into the parliament today and says that his wife is deeply hurt and that his mother is deeply offended, that it is appalling and that I do not have the courage to apologise—even though he knew yesterday that I had.

Do I think the claim that the Coalition has led the reforms that have led to the limited merits review being brought forward two years is dishonest? Yes, I do. Why? Because the then minister Gary Gray was ringing me up very concerned that the Queensland cabinet had not considered the limit merits review and that the New South Wales government was also stalling on it. Why? They own their assets. Regulated decisions that increase their profitability hurt their treasury.

For the member for Waite to turn up here and say, 'Well, no, Queensland and New South Wales are the leaders of all this. Chris Hartcher and McArdle really want this. Their treasurers can't wait for a limited merits review,' is not believable. Yes, eventually they all supported it, but it is dishonest in the extreme to say that this is a Coalition-led initiative. It was a Labor minister who brought this forward at the SCER and it was the Hon. Gary Gray, who was then minister for mineral resources and energy.

Let's continue on the theme of honesty and misleading 891 listeners. I want to quote from a transcript of the member for Waite being interviewed on radio by Mr Ian Henschke—since you are so concerned about 891 listeners. This is what the member for Waite says:

Good morning...fascinating conversation...I don't know what the Labor Government's policy is on smart meters because they haven't enunciated one...they have no policy on energy that I've seen of late...

That was on 22 October. It is funny that he was briefed on 30 September about our bill before the parliament on smart meters.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, well, that's different. 'I don't know what their policy is on smart meters, even though they have got a bill before the parliament.' That is completely honest by the member for Waite: that is not misleading 891 listeners! But it gets better. This is what he says further in the conversation, in the same breath. I am quoting the member for Waite:

Now the Productivity Commission's made the point with smart meters we can save at least $200 a month for the average household.

That is what the member for Waite has told the people on 891, that people who have smart meters can save $200 a month. This is what the Productivity Commission actually said about what you could save with a smart meter. They released a report on 26 June—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's not what you said, though.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, it's not his fault. It is the transcriber's fault. But, let's go on, because you were quoting transcript before and that is completely accurate but, when I quote it, it is not accurate. This is what the Productivity Commission actually says about what smart meters will save the average household:

if carefully implemented, critical peak pricing and the rollout of smart meters could produce average savings of around $100-$200 per household—

the key words here—

each year

I look forward to the member for Waite going on ABC 891 and telling the listeners he misled them. It could be deliberate, or perhaps he is just a fool. Who knows? Who could tell? Perhaps, to quote him back, it would be better to remain silent than to remove all doubt and go on radio and claim to the good people of South Australia, through 891, that they will save $200 a month rather than a year. That is pretty sloppy policy making. That is pretty sloppy from someone who wants to be the energy minister. But we have seen this before from the member for Waite.

When you want to question my integrity and my honesty about what I tell 891 listeners, perhaps you will remove the log from your own eye before you talk about the speck in mine, and come in here, all full of righteous indignation, pointing your finger at me and quoting your wife and your mother, after you know that I have apologised to you for calling you dishonest.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Go on 891 and say that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why don't you go on 891 and say you are wrong?

Mr Hamilton-Smith: I didn't make it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: 'I didn't make it. The transcribers are wrong. The tape's inaccurate. I didn't say "month", I said "year".'

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Do the right thing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why don't you do the right thing? Of course, when he gets it wrong, it is okay because it is an honest mistake. 'When I accuse the government of taking bribes from scientologists, that is different. When I accuse the government of dishonesty, that is different.' When it is piled back on him, 'Do the right thing, would you, minister?' If it is good enough for me, it is good enough for you. If you cannot take the heat in the kitchen, get out.

It is a well-established fact that, within political debate, things are said in the heat of the moment. The moment you said to me, through the chair, that you took offence at the term 'dishonest', I jumped to my feet and I apologised, 24 hours ago. That was not good enough for you. You raised it again. Why? What does that say about the character of the man? Is he really after an apology? Or, is he just trying to make a political point? Do you want to take action? Roll the dice, baby, and let us see how you go. Go ahead: roll the dice.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: You are.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Really?

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, exactly! As for the limited merits review, I am stunned that an opposition would say that we have failed in our duty. I have been the Minister for Energy less than a term and in that term we have deregulated power prices, a reform that was long overdue. The opposition claims we should have done it earlier. Going back and checking all their press releases, all their public statements and all their election policies, how many times did they call for us to deregulate power? Never.

Now he is saying this limited merits review should have been done earlier and that we failed in our duty. Perhaps he could point to the press release that he put out, either as leader of the opposition or shadow minister, or in his capacity as the member for Waite in the last 16 years, about the operation of the NEM and since 2008 when he has called for a limited merits review. Perhaps he can enlighten the house when he has done that. Well, I will tell you: as far as I know, he has never done it.

He comes in yesterday and says, 'You need a market for smart meters' while he is debating our bill on smart meters. He says we have not acted. He is voting on our bill to create a market for smart meters. He then says, 'You have done nothing about rolling this out' and when I quote to him that we have already sought a rule change to allow a third party or anyone involved to distribute smart meters, again, facts do not get in the way of a good story, so he just continues along his blustering line.

Then he says, 'This limited merits review which was due to be done in 2015 should have been done sooner.' Well, that is right, it is being done sooner, and it is this Labor government that is bringing it forward two years but, again, do not let the facts get in the way of a good story. I look forward to the member for Waite going on radio and saying, 'Oh, I am very sorry for misleading your listeners about the potential savings of smart meters', but, of course, you will not. You cannot, because now you are just going to say, 'I never said years: I said months'.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: I do not think it is what I said.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have got the transcript right here.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Get the recording.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get the recording.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Get the recording. It is black and white in the Productivity Commission's report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is black and white; exactly.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is a very good point that the member for Waite makes. It is black and white. How can anyone after reading this report go on radio and say it is actually $200 a month, unless they are attempting to deliberately mislead or they are incompetent and do not know what they are talking about? I am happy for the member for Waite to choose either one. Either characterisation is fine by me. If you want to say you are incompetent, fine or if you are deliberately misleading, fine. You choose, but one of those statements is true, and you can choose either one.

Electricity reform is a very difficult issue, and when the member for Waite started his contribution he started it in terms of justifying past acts and saying those past acts have no bearing on power prices that are being paid today. The argument he wants to perpetrate to the people of South Australia is this: the privatisation and sale of our electricity assets does not directly correlate to any price increase consumers face today. That statement is erroneous. That statement is not accurate.

If the Treasurer of South Australia, like the Treasurer of Queensland just did recently, wishes to suspend an increase in power prices, they can, because the assets are owned by those individual sovereign governments. On the ability for us to decide where infrastructure is spent, what the rollout is and, to use the member for Waite's terminology, the gold plating of our infrastructure, when you have a privatised market with regulated assets for a regulated return, he claims it is a failure of the regulation that gives higher power prices, but not the initial act that caused the regulation of those privatised assets.

If that is the argument you want to make to the people of South Australia, bring it on. I am happy to debate you on the privatisation of ETSA any time, anywhere. It was the wrong decision then; it is the wrong decision now. In terms of a limited merits review, I am glad that the Queensland government eventually came to us at the SCER and agreed. I am glad that Minister Hartcher came to us and agreed. I am glad that Michael O'Brien and Nicholas Kotsiras have done a good job in supporting minister Gary Gray.

The limited merits review is led by the commonwealth, and to say otherwise is not accurate. I think the commonwealth, which chairs SCER, was very keen to make sure that this limited merits review passed, and why? Because, as prime ministers Rudd and Gillard had said, the state-owned enterprises of Queensland and New South Wales owned by those jurisdictions, governed both by Labor and Liberal, are gouging their constituents and in exchange are gouging us. That gouging needs to end.

The limited merits review is a way in which we can retaliate against regulated decisions, to check what the AER is doing, to check what regulators are giving and to make sure that we can maintain a level of balance within the market. I think it is unfair in the extreme to say that we have acted late. This limited merits review was not due for another two years. We have brought it forward, and not once has the opposition called on us to bring it forward. If you want to debate policies, I will debate your policy anywhere. I have read your policy—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Mr Speaker, is he talking to me or you?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Through you, Mr Speaker, I am talking to the member for Waite. He was quite happy to point his finger and go bright red at me but just can't seem to take it when it is being fired back at him.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that right?

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Really?

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It doesn't distract me, either.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Really? Yes, and I'm over here and you're over there, and that's the story of our careers.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: That's true.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Exactly. And I have got to say this, Mr Speaker: I do have a lot of respect for the member for Waite because he is one of the thinkers in the Liberal Party. It is not my fault his caucus do not share the same view as what he does about his abilities; it is not my fault. It is not my fault that they have lost election after election, and it is not my fault that as a backbencher he was forced to vote for the privatisation of ETSA. And he carries it around him like a crown of thorns, and he does all he can to try to justify that decision, but he knows he made the wrong choice then.

He knows that that is a decision that, if he could go back in time, he would take back, but he was compelled to do so, and like a good soldier he followed his orders and went over the top. But do not try to come in here and tell me it was the right decision and that everything else other than privatisation has caused an increase in power prices in this state, because every South Australian intuitively knows that decision was the wrong one. However, I do thank him for his support on the bill, I thank him for his carriage through the parliament, and I thank members of the opposition voting for this Labor reform.

Bill read a second time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the house to go into committee? No. Minister.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (18:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.