Emissions Intensity Scheme

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy. Does the minister support the Premier's proposal to go it alone in implementing a state-based emissions intensity scheme or carbon tax?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (14:13): An emissions intensity scheme is not a carbon tax, but why let the details get in the way of the story? The emissions intensity scheme developed by the then leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, who is now our Prime Minister, is a very good scheme. We certainly support there being an energy intensity scheme in terms of a national process.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is on a full set of warnings.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: An energy intensity scheme on the national electricity network would mean a great deal of benefit for the people of South Australia, despite opposition from members opposite. We would be a net importer of credits because, of course, we don't have coal-fired generation. It would incentivise our gas-fired generation here in South Australia. It would, of course, mean that those gas-fired generators would operate more often, and that means operating more often. They would offer more contracts into the market and, of course, you would see almost immediately, with an energy intensity scheme, the flows of the interconnectors reversed to the eastern seaboard.

Of course, we can't have a pro South Australia policy because members opposite serve the eastern seaboard, not us, and they oppose an energy intensity scheme. I am disappointed that they do, for there is broad support for the energy intensity scheme. I will give you some of the names: the Chief Scientist, the CSIRO, the Australian Energy Market Commission. The current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, used to support one. Josh Frydenberg for a moment supported one, for a brief shining moment. For a brief shining moment, he supported an energy intensity scheme.

Yes, of course we support a price on carbon. We've always supported a price on carbon. We are the Labor Party. The market has factored in a price on carbon. The only people with their heads buried in the sand on carbon are members opposite.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You can't not price carbon. Of course you have to price carbon.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: the minister is debating the substance of the question.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I think he has just tipped over into debate in his last couple of sentences, but in the pause provided I call to order the members for Stuart and Chaffey, and I warn the members for Davenport and Schubert—comrades both.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The two propositions that the Leader of the Opposition has made, we support on a national basis absolutely. We absolutely support there being a price on carbon, or an energy intensity scheme. We also support a renewable energy target because we believe, like the Prime Minister does, that when you sign the Paris agreement, which means you must decarbonise your electricity grid, you need mechanisms to do that.

We have not introduced a state-based mechanism for our renewable energy target. Other jurisdictions are thinking about mechanisms for their renewable energy target. The mechanism that we use is the commonwealth one. They are the ones who incentivise our renewable energy target. I think that investment is good for South Australia. I think it creates jobs, it creates wealth and it creates activity and, most importantly, it creates competition—competition that was taken away from us during the privatisation of ETSA by members opposite. That competition is the most important thing.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I heard 'Victoria' interjected by the recently demoted member for Stuart. When Mr Kennett privatised the network in Victoria, he broke it up. He didn't give it to one monopoly—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: relevance, Mr Speaker, because for three minutes we have heard anything but the proposed state tax. That was the question.

The SPEAKER: Actually, we have heard quite a bit about the merits of that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the national test.

The SPEAKER: Yes, we have heard a lot, so I'm not sure that the point is valid, but the Treasurer appears to be—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We will be—

The SPEAKER: I haven't finished yet. Rather than engage in tauromachy, he might attend to relevance and substance.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir. Thank you for your wisdom again. When we announce our package in full, we will be in the parliament telling everyone about it.

The SPEAKER: That was a happy outcome. Leader.