Hansard Daily: House of Assembly - Thursday, March 2 2017

Motions

Electricity Market

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:51): I move:

That this house expresses its concern at the state of the South Australian electricity market and, in particular, notes—

(a) the state government's energy policy over the last 15 years has delivered South Australian consumers the worst outcomes in the nation;

(b) the first ever statewide electricity blackout in Australia occurred in South Australia on 28 September 2016;

(d) electricity prices in South Australia are the highest in the nation;

(e) the impact that high household electricity prices add to cost of living pressures;

(f) the impact that high business electricity prices add to unemployment pressures;

(g) unemployment in South Australia is the highest in the nation;

(h) both the Victorian and South Australian electricity markets were privatised at similar times, yet Victorians pay the lowest electricity prices in the nation; and

(i) the closure of the coal-fired electricity generator at Port Augusta has led to the increased importation of coal-fired electricity from Victoria.

South Australia is in a complete and utter mess at the moment. Fifteen years of self-serving, hopeless Labor administration in this state have delivered for us the highest unemployment rate in the nation and also the highest youth unemployment rate in the nation.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members are entitled to be heard in silence. I ask all members on both sides to observe the standing orders so that the leader can be heard in silence.

Mr MARSHALL: It is interesting that the Premier has come into the chamber and wants to argue that he does not have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. The last time I looked, which was only about a week ago, the ABS statistics on the trend unemployment rate in the nation showed South Australia as having the—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Now the Premier comes into the chamber and says, 'I want to look at the seasonal adjustment.' He moves around all over the place. The trend is acknowledged by every single economist.

Members interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: There we go again, from the Premier of this state wanting to take one small statistic and twist it 19 different ways to support his hopeless narrative. The simple fact of the matter is that this guy is hopeless. He is a wrecking ball—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. The leader's time will expire without any debate if you do not be quiet and observe the standing orders. It is very simple: he is the one on his feet, so he is the one who speaks. People who interject will be named and warned, and question time will be very quiet if we do not all start observing the standing orders.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The simple fact of the matter is that this government has been a wrecking ball for employment in this state. We have had the highest unemployment rate in trend terms for 23 out of the last 24 months. What a disgraceful situation. The youth unemployment rate has recently been published, and we have a dangerously high 17 per cent youth unemployment rate in this state.

Take a look at some of the other catastrophes which are now hitting the people of South Australia: the hopeless mismanagement of our Corrections in South Australia; Transforming Health is a complete and utter mess; we have an exodus of young people out of this state and, most importantly, we have a crisis of confidence in the future of this state. Young people are giving up hope. Last financial year, we had in excess of 6,000 people leaving our state, in net terms. So, that is the difference between the people who are leaving and the people who are coming back in—more than 6,000 people have given up hope in this state because of the hopeless mismanagement of this government.

They have been hopeless in child protection—take a look at the mess. They have been hopeless in managing the build of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital—$600 million over budget. Transforming Health is a complete catastrophe and they cannot keep a bridge up after building it six years ago, but the area in which they have a special sort of incompetence is their electricity strategy in South Australia—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Treasurer is reminded of the standing orders.

Mr MARSHALL: Their incompetence in terms of electricity policy knows no bounds and has made South Australia the laughing stock of the entire nation. Just take a look at the facts. We now have the highest priced electricity in the nation and the least reliable grid. That takes a certain type of incompetence, the highest price and the least reliable grid in the entire nation. Take a look at what the effects of this will be on investment going forward in our state.

We have had statements in the press, in the media, for months where people are saying, 'I'm not going to be making any further investment in South Australia until they can guarantee to keep the lights on.' Unfortunately, what the Premier is now doing is referring to these people as the employer class as though these are somehow some sort of nasty people who have got some dog in the game, backing coal and not backing the people of South Australia. Let me tell you, Premier, these are the people who are employing South Australians. These are the people who strive to grow our economy by investing, and they cannot invest in this state when you cannot keep the lights on, you cannot keep our electricity prices affordable and you cannot ensure that this state has a future.

This government, of course, decided on their electricity strategy for this state based upon pure ideology. They made it very clear a long period of time ago that they wanted to have this state as some sort of renewable nirvana. They said that they wanted to have a 50 per cent renewable energy target for South Australia. So, this is not something that has happened to the people of South Australia, this is something which has been inflicted upon the people of South Australia by none other than those people that are sitting opposite. Their ideological pursuit, their obsession of intermittent renewable energy in South Australia has left us vulnerable and has put us at a massive competitive disadvantage from every other state in Australia.

Let's just take a look at the facts. Recently, the Liberal Party held a conference down in Mount Gambier. What a disgraceful situation when business after business, producer after producer says, 'I can see a situation over the border where the electricity prices are half what they are on this side of the border.' The same situation is happening in the Riverland. We have this divide between our states, a completely different arrangement in terms of energy security and energy pricing, and the deliberate strategies of the Labor government have left us at a competitive disadvantage from our near neighbours.

Labor, of course, continues to defend their strategy. They want to blame everybody other than themselves. Basically, we have a long list of people that the minister would like to blame. He would like to blame the Liberals, he would like to blame the Victorians, he would like to blame the weather, he would like to blame AEMO, he would like to blame the Prime Minister. The one person who does not take any responsibility in this entire debate is the energy minister in South Australia. I think he has been the minister now for almost four years. He should have got a briefing by now and he should understand that the deliberate policies of this government have led to the situation that we are currently in.

He should also have listened to some of the warnings that have come from this side of the chamber because for many years now the Liberal Party have been saying that this relentless, obsessive pursuit of intermittent renewable energy in South Australia needs to be checked. Where was the market impact assessment? Where was the understanding of what the generational arrangement should be in South Australia so that we had an appropriate mix in this state? None, none whatsoever, even though we know that they have an energy policy unit sitting within the Department of State Development, which costs the taxpayers around $30 million a year.

Where was the advice to the government? Where was the modelling about what the impact of their strategies would be on household energy affordability and the affordability and reliability for the business community in South Australia? Perhaps they received it. Perhaps they ignored it. Perhaps they do not care. Perhaps they just have this obsession and the obsession must be satisfied. The simple fact of the matter is, whatever the reason is, they have not done a good job for the people of South Australia.

Again, on this side of the parliament we have been asking questions about what was going to happen up at Port Augusta with the Alinta facility, the Northern power station, where the owners of that facility, Alinta, have been making very substantial investments in that site over the last few years to try to bring it up to world's best practice standard. They have made very substantial investments, but the government refused to listen to any of the warnings about the profitability and viability of that affordable, reliable base load provider.

They could not wait to run them out of the state. Basically, the Premier was standing there with pompoms, shaking them as Alinta was driven out of this state by the ideology of those opposite. Take a look at the consequences. When they made the announcement to the people of South Australia and to the Australian market more broadly in June 2015, immediately the ASX futures price for energy went through the roof. That should have been the first warning sign. Let me tell you, at that point the Liberal Party again said, 'What are you doing to keep Alinta in South Australia?' Hundreds of jobs lost at Leigh Creek; hundreds of jobs lost at Port Augusta. Did the Premier care? No—absolutely not.

He was absolutely wedded to his obsession for intermittent renewable energy in South Australia. They hate coal. They hate people having affordable, reliable fuel, energy, in South Australia. Their obsession has put us in a perilous situation in this state. So, what could they have done? Let me tell you: there was an offer. It was put on the table by Alinta, and for a small state subsidy we could have kept that base load in South Australia and managed the transition to renewable energy in an orderly fashion where we would not be damaging our economy, possibly irreparably, with the current policy settings of this government. Something was put on the table, but the government rejected it, the cabinet rejected it. In fact, they still will not tell us what was in that deal.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: They will not have the guts to stand up in this parliament and tell the people of South Australia what was in that deal. That is disgraceful. They should be putting the interests of the people of South Australia first, and now they should be coming to this debate and putting on the table what we could have done to keep that Alinta site in South Australia open. Of course, we now have the situation where the government says the National Electricity Market in Australia is broken.

They are the latest people we need to blame for the failings of this government, yet it turns out that the Treasurer has stood up in this chamber pretty recently, thumping his chest, telling us all that, actually, he decided. It was the South Australian government that designed the National Electricity Market, and it was going to deliver better outcomes for all South Australians. Only 18 months ago, the Treasurer stood up and said that energy prices in South Australia were going to go down by 10 per cent.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: That certainly has not happened. They cling to the renewable energy target. Let me tell you, even the Labor leader in Western Australia is moving away from the 50 per cent renewable energy target because he knows we need to manage the transition through to renewables, not just have this ideological drive that is ruining the South Australian economy. I must say, true to form, the federal Labor leader, Bill Shorten, and Mark Butler, the environment shadow minister for the ALP, have been back-pedalling very quickly lately.

No longer is it going to be some sort of legislated renewable energy target: it is now going to be aspirational. Let me tell you, it is not aspirational in South Australia: it is something that must happen in South Australia, and that is what these people opposite want.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: A couple of weeks ago, when we realised we have the dual crises of the highest price and least reliable energy in the country—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Treasurer is called to order.

Mr MARSHALL: —and there is nobody left to blame, the Premier stood up and said, 'I am going to have a dramatic intervention in the market; we are going to go it alone,' only to be shot down the next morning by the Treasurer on the radio, who said, 'We can't really go it alone.' Then the Premier had to go out again and say, 'Well, we are going to go it alone.' Then the Treasurer came into the parliament, and do you know what he said? He said, 'I am going to COAG tomorrow, and I am going to outline to absolutely everybody what this dramatic intervention is actually going to be.' Did he do that? Did he go to COAG, as he told the parliament—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: —to outline this dramatic intervention? No, he did not, because they do not even know what they are going to do. They have absolutely no idea whatsoever—no idea. Let me tell you what they should be doing. First of all, they should scrap the state-based renewable energy target. That is a fact. That is not serving the people of South Australia well whatsoever.

They need to look at demand management, lowering the total energy consumption here in South Australia because it is the peakiness of our demand which pushes up the total price. They need to be investing in storage technologies. The simple fact of the matter is that we have all this intermittent renewable energy but it is not available when we actually need to use it. We need to be investing in storage technologies. Have they done that? No. It is the Liberal Party that has been calling for the state to support those people who are investing in this new technology. The government have done nothing; they have been sitting on their hands.

There needs to be a market impact assessment for all new renewable energy opportunities in this state. We do not need to stop all renewable energy opportunities for South Australia. Those that offer base load, like pump hydro and solar thermal—and I commend the member for Stuart who has been advocating—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: —for solar thermal at Port Augusta for an extended period of time. These are the things—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet, sit down. There is to be no—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I can't help him when he is on his feet if you speak, can I? We are all aware of the standing orders. I would hate to have to give the leader another minute. Leader.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The government's energy policy is in crisis: highest prices and the least reliable energy in the country. They have made South Australia the laughing stock where people interstate are basically saying, 'You cannot even keep your lights on,' and it is going to kill any future investment in our state. They have made South Australia the laughing stock. They have humiliated the state on the national stage. That is what the Premier of South Australia and his energy minister have done.

By contrast, the Liberal Party has said, 'Let's scrap the state-based renewable energy target. Let's have a market impact assessment on all new renewable energy opportunities for this state. Let's invest in storage technology. Let's consider every single possible option, whether that be pumped hydro, solar thermal or whether it be restarting the facility at Port Augusta. Keep everything on the table and put the consumers first. Put the consumers first, not the consumers last.'

I will tell you what, we had a real hiccup at the Oscars this week when they accidentally announced La La Land. I can tell you exactly where La La Land is: it is those opposite.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I encourage you all to do a little bit more of that because once—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morialta has taken advantage of my good humour. I have warned everybody for the last time. Standing orders will be observed here this morning, and just as you have mostly been heard in silence—mostly, I say—I expect the same courtesy to be extended to the Premier while he is on his feet. The Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (11:08): South Australia is proud of its leadership role in relation to renewable energy and we believe that this represents not only South Australia's energy future but the future for our nation: cleaner energy, more reliable energy and energy which provides an affordable way of ensuring that we meet our energy needs into the future.

Do not just take my word for it but take the word of the present Prime Minister of Australia who in 2010 said that Australia needs to move to a situation where all or almost all of our energy comes from zero or very near zero emission sources. He went on to say that we should be guided by science. As recently as last year at the Liberal Party campaign launch here in South Australia Mr Turnbull congratulated South Australia on its renewable energy policies. He said:

South Australia is a leader in clean energy generation and also benefits from our programs [his programs] which support renewables including of course the RET.

He has also been a strong supporter of an idea which we have been advocating, an emissions intensity scheme, describing it as a greener, cheaper, smarter plan. In August 2009, he told the federal parliament:

Part of the genius and wisdom behind the Frontier Economics proposal—

that is, the proposal designed for them by the EIS—

is the fact that, because it results in dramatically lower electricity prices in the near and medium term, you do not require that enormous churn of money—that enormous tax grab by the government which the government then recycles. It is a vastly superior approach.

Of course, he is not the only person who once backed greener, cheaper, smarter renewables.

In February 2012, soon after I became Premier, the opposition's then sustainability and climate change spokesman, the present Leader of the Opposition, accused me of being a Premier who does not have the same focus on renewables as the former premier. Let us underscore that: the opposition leader lamented my commitment to renewables not being strong enough. He accused me of 'passing the buck to the feds', and he went on to say these words:

There's no certainty for the industry, these things are announced, then they're dropped...there has got to be certainty.

So, what has changed? In September last year—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order on my left.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: So, what happened? In September last year, with a Prime Minister, who by then had a one-seat majority, hanging on by a thread with the right-wing ideologues, principally out of Queensland, who are dictating the direction of his government, he seized on the statewide blackout, which his own advice told him was caused by a storm, and took the opportunity to make some cheap political points. The Prime Minister went on from congratulating us on renewable energy to use these words:

Drunk on Left ideology on energy...putting Australian's livelihoods, businesses and households at risk.

The Prime Minister went on from advocating a zero emissions future to advocating coal. Just recently he said:

Coal's going to be an important part of our energy mix—there's no question about that—for many, many decades to come.

And, now, we have an opposition leader, who once lamented I was not doing enough on renewable energy, who now wants to scrap our renewable energy target altogether and hand over our energy policy to the same people who are handing around lumps of coal in the federal parliament. So it was not doing enough on renewable energy to actually now, essentially, doing too much on renewable energy. He now says the target is dangerous.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order on my left!

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He wants to outsource our energy policy to Canberra. What does the upshot of all this mean? It is the political equivalent of a protection racket.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is warned for the first time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is the political equivalent of a protection racket: somebody who goes around all night bashing your windows in—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is warned for the second time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —goes around all night bashing your windows in, and then turns up—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Premier, just a moment. Member for Chaffey, you are on two warnings, and you will leave the chamber if I hear you again. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is the political equivalent of a protection racket: they go around all night bashing your windows in and then turn up the next morning wanting to sell you home insurance.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is warned.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They want to send us the bill for the policy sabotage in this country of our energy system. We have been—

Mr Marshall: Oh, give it up!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader is called to order.

Mr Marshall: Stop trying to blame other people. You are such a wet, weak Premier.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader is warned for the first time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, don't take my words for it, take the words of the Prime Minister of the country for it, who says:

So as I am a humble backbencher—

those were the days shortly after he was deposed—

I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into. First, let's get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader is warned for a second time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He continues:

To replace dirty coal-fired power stations with cleaner gas-fired ones, or renewables like wind, let alone nuclear power or even coal-fired power with carbon capture and storage, is all going to cost money. To get farmers to change their way, to manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money. Somebody has to pay.

So, any suggestion you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, 'bullshit'. Moreover he knows it. The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme, as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation, is that it is cheaper. In other words, electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emissions. The term you will see used for this is 'least cost abatement'. What we have had—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The current Prime Minister of Australia describes the Coalition's policies in relation to climate change and the integration with energy policy as 'bullshit' and he criticises it for being the policy sabotage that it is. The Labor Party has consistently said that you need to be running a scheme which allows us to put a price on carbon because you need a price on carbon to incentivise the investment that will be necessary to drive an effective and sustainable energy system.

So, the very things that the Leader of the Opposition complains about, the underinvestment, which are causing the pressures on the system—and I noticed today that one of the defence spokespeople for the federal government is saying that the national security of our nation is at risk because our energy security system in this country is broken, a national electricity market which is broken. It is a national electricity market which is broken because of the absence of leadership at a national level to provide a price on carbon to send the investment signals to ensure the investments that need to be made in this system happen. So, the policy sabotage which has emerged at the national level, cooperated and collaborated in by those opposite, leads us to this very day, and they have the audacity to come in here and lecture us about—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —our failings in relation to—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —electricity policy, and they are made so much worse—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The situation in South Australia is made so much worse by that ill-fated privatisation of the Electricity Trust of South Australia. Not content to privatise—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader is named and will leave us for five minutes.

The honourable member for Dunstan having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Not content to privatise the Electricity Trust, the cold dead hand of the spokesperson for the energy policy in the upper house, Mr Lucas, reaches out from his political grave to one last time punish the people of South Australia through the scotching of the interconnector with New South Wales, something which if it had have been in place would have provided an entirely different energy pattern of investment here and put us in a much better position to deal with the current circumstances we find ourselves in. What we have—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Unley is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: At least the Prime Minister of this country had an excuse to run away from his former convictions—it was survival.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned for the first time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: How does that explain the Leader of the Opposition's position where he has sacrificed South Australia's interests for no more than a craven attempt to fall into line with his federal colleagues? What is the explanation for every Liberal opposition leader in this country to simultaneously on the same day abandon their commitment to renewable energy? Unless that was an extraordinary coincidence, it is more likely explained by the fact that the federal Coalition whistled up all of their kowtowing state colleagues and asked them to sacrifice their state's interest in respect of one venal interest, that is the interest of the Liberal Party of Australia. We believe in a clean energy future, a renewable energy future—affordable, cheaper, cleaner, reliable power for the future of our citizens.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I draw members' attention to the fact that the member for MacKillop is on his feet waiting for the call.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind members of standing orders 129 and 131. Move for your books immediately which should keep you quiet for three minutes, and we now give the member for MacKillop the call.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:18): Just now we have heard exactly what the problem is with this government. We have had the Premier come in here with an opportunity to talk about his energy policy and not once did he tell us what he is planning. Not once did he say anything about what he is planning to do, what his minister is planning to do. All he did was have a go at everybody else. South Australia is in a—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: South Australia in a perilous position. We are desperate for investment in this state.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wright's voice is carrying down here.

Mr WILLIAMS: Who on earth is going to invest in South Australia when they know that the lights are going to go out at any minute? South Australian businesses are losing tens of thousands of dollars because of the stupid policies of this government, and this government does not have the guts to talk about its plan—does not have the guts. The Premier just said that one of the problems we have is that we have a broken system and that there is no investment; there is no investment in electricity generation.

During the last two weeks, the Minister for Energy has told this house that $7 billion—$7 billion—has been invested in renewables in South Australia in the last period. It is on the Hansard—$7 billion in wind farms and rooftop solar panels. How much money do we need to invest in electricity in South Australia to keep the lights on? We have seen $7 billion invested over and above our capacity to produce electricity from the electricity generating set that was here before any of that investment. As we were told again in question time this week by the minister, South Australia has enough installed capacity to look after itself. That is without any of the renewables.

So we had enough capacity to look after our electricity needs and then, through the policies of this government, we have invested another $7 billion and we still cannot keep the lights on. The Premier says it is Malcolm Turnbull's fault. Give me a break—give me a break. We have heard the Minister for Energy say over recent weeks, 'All these wind farms, it's not our fault, it's the RET, it's the federal government's policy that has been driving investment in wind farms in South Australia.'

There is an approval for a wind farm in my electorate that was only gained because this government changed the Development Act so it would get through. Yet, they stand up now and blame the federal Liberal government for encouraging wind farm development in South Australia. I am gobsmacked by the hypocrisy that I hear on a daily basis in this place. The previous premier Rann, I cannot say many how many times I heard him—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Newland.

Mr WILLIAMS: —say the line, 'There was not one wind farm in South Australia before we came to power and look how many we've got now.' He took the credit for it, but now that the lights keep going out we have the minister running away from that as hard as he can. Yet, the Premier is embracing renewables; they are playing both sides of the fence. They are playing both sides of the fence and South Australia is losing out. That is the problem; well, that is one of the problems.

The Premier used the term a moment ago, 'the ill-fated privatisation'. I was sitting on the crossbenches when that bill went through the parliament to privatise our assets. In fact, I think the Labor Party supported a 100-year lease, which is what we have.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Treasurer is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order on my right!

Mr WILLIAMS: Notwithstanding that, I was sitting on the crossbenches when that bill went through the parliament. One of the things that convinced me that that sale was for the benefit of South Australia was that at that time we had significant manufacturing happening in South Australia. We did not have the benefit of some of the electricity saving technologies that have come along in the meantime, principally and particularly LED lighting, which has the potential to save, worldwide, up to 50 per cent of the carbon footprint of electricity production.

We did not have any of that 20 years ago, but what we did have was a lot of manufacturing in South Australia and we were reaching capacity of our generators. We needed another power station. The state could not borrow the money to build another power station, and we all know why: because that lot over there sent the state broke. The last borrowings that the previous Labor government inflicted upon the people of South Australia were from a group of Belgian dentists at the interest rate of 15 per cent.

Should we have borrowed money at 15 per cent to build another power station, that would have been madness. One of the things that convinced me about the sale of ETSA was that, by selling ETSA, we could recover the position of the government's finances, but we also sent a strong message to the private sector, and that is why the Pelican Point power station was built. It was built by the private sector following the sale of ETSA.

We have the Premier and the minister coming here regularly saying the system is broken, saying how dare those private owners of the Pelican Point power station, ENGIE, not have their machines running, and blaming privatisation. If it was not for the privatisation of ETSA, that power station would not even be there—that is fact. It would not be there.

This government encourages all this renewable energy to be put into the system. Whenever the wind blows, the electricity that is sold to the market comes from windmills, yet they expect ENGIE to be running the Pelican Point power station non-stop just to allow for when the wind stops blowing. The Pelican Point power station is a very modern power station and it can be started up fairly quickly, but it is not a matter of turning the key and it running. It is a combined-cycle gas generator. You can get a fair bit of output out of it fairly quickly, but you cannot get the total output out of it until the whole thing is warmed up, and that takes many hours.

Port Augusta can take up to 24 hours to start from scratch and, when you have it running, you cannot slow down the amount of coal you put into it because, if you slow it down, you lose its capacity. When the wind stops, if you do not have the capacity there, you cannot use it, and it takes many, many hours to build the capacity up. That is why Port Augusta shut down, and that is why Hazelwood will be shutting down, because they were forced to run flat out for when the wind stopped blowing, which happens for at least one period, every day.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What wind are we talking about?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Treasurer is called to order.

Mr WILLIAMS: The reality is that we are sold this giant lie that we are saving the planet by reducing our carbon footprint by building windmills. Port Augusta kept burning coal even when the wind was blowing because it had to. It kept burning coal. Hazelwood burns coal 24/7, irrespective of whether the wind is blowing or not, because it is obliged to be there for when the wind does not blow, and the wind drops out every day. If we produce 40 per cent of our power from windmills, we certainly are not reducing our carbon footprint by 40 per cent: we would be lucky to be reducing it by 10 per cent. That is the giant lie about wind generation. You do not reduce your footprint because you are reliant on a coal-fired generator.

If this government thinks that South Australia is going to go it alone, they should go down and pull the interconnector with Victoria. 'We do not want to be connected to that dirty, filthy coal-fired power station,' they say. Go and pull the interconnector so we are not connected to it and see what happens. We all know what will happen: the lights will be out even more regularly. Every time it heats up, the lights will go out.

One of the solutions this government has proffered over recent times is to build another interconnector. The Premier just bemoaned the fact and accused Rob Lucas of scuttling an interconnector to New South Wales—another interconnector. Mike Rann promised at the 2002 election that he would build an interconnector to New South Wales to bring cheaper energy to South Australia. What happened to that promise? Fifteen years later, we still do not have it. Their record is abysmal.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

Mr WILLIAMS: That is a great pity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (11:29): Written and authorised by Reggie Martin and Mitch Williams.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Williams: I am talking about your policy, you fool.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That could be a Labor Party ad.

Mr Williams: I am talking about your policy.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That could be a Labor Party ad.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer hasn't been given the call yet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, ma'am; my apologies.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like to give everyone a few seconds to vent, so we can all get back to the standing orders. Okay, we seem to be ready. Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ma'am.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Ma'am—my apologies.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's alright. It has been rumoured I have—anyway, go on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, ma'am. Over the debate on our electricity in this state, the opposition have attacked every form of South Australian generation available. They have attacked wind, they have attacked solar and they have attacked gas. What is the generation that they defend? Victorian coal. If we want our sovereignty—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If we want our sovereignty—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If we want our sovereignty to be able to decide our own future, to decide our own generation needs, to decide our own prosperity, then we need our own generation. The idea that we would have a South Australian party, like some Manchurian Candidate in here arguing for interstate sources of fuel and energy, is a disgrace. I will go one step further: arguing for banning coal—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned for the second time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —for banning gas in the South-East goes to show you their preference for the eastern seaboard over us. We are awash with national resources—we are awash with gas, we are awash with sun, we are awash with wind—and attacking Santos and attacking Beach and attacking our South Australian-based oil and gas supplies behoves the opposition and it shows who they are really are: they are not here to serve the state's interests, they are here to serve the Liberal Party's interests.

I have to say that, in regard to this lamentation over the closure over a failing coal-fired power station at Port Augusta, the Leader of the Opposition was right about one thing: there were massive investments made by Alinta to make that power station profitable—over $200 million to try to make the mine economic, to try to make the logistics work and to try to make the power station operate, yet, unfortunately, that Eastern States coal and commonwealth subsidies killed it.

The reality is this: South Australians were not buying power from Alinta. The government did; the government had a contract with Alinta. We did everything that we could to support that power station. Why? We wanted competition, so we used our procurement in a sensible way to try to make sure that we did everything we could to support a competitive market.

The opposition have called for direct intervention to prop up one generator, one retailer—a capacity payment, that is what it is. Dressed up anyway you want, it is a capacity payment. The Western Australian government pays over $100,000 per megawatt hour in capacity payments. Imagine if we paid to keep the Port Augusta coal-fired power station that was losing money on, what is the next phone call we would get on a hot day? We would get a phone call from AGL, saying, 'If you want Torrens Island on, pay us as well.' Then we would get a phone call from Origin, saying, 'If you want Osborne on, you pay us as well.' Then when it is really hot, and we want ENGIE to turn Pelican Point on, they will say, 'Hang on, you're paying Port Augusta, you're paying AGL, you're paying Origin, pay us too.' How about we actually think this through and come up with a concerted policy, rather than howling at the moon.

Mr Wingard: Keep the lights on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There you go—slogans, slogans rather than policies, slogans.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There you go—no better example of the malaise in the Liberal Party.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I just want to remind both the member for Mitchell and the Treasurer that interjections and responding to interjections is not acceptable under standing orders.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have heard the opposition say that they are going to take nothing off the table—nothing—to focus on killing any potential investment in South Australia. So will go to the most recent policy document, '2036'. This manifesto that the state Liberal Party outlines is their plan for the next 19 years. Do you know how many times the word 'electricity' is mentioned in that plan? Anyone have a guess? Once, twice, 50 times? Not once. Not once is the word 'electricity' present in Steven Marshall's '2036' plan. In fact, the only time he mentions energy is when he talks about resources, minerals and energy. That is the vision for 2036. They do not even mention the word 'electricity'.

So, do not come in here and lecture us. In fact, their commitment to energy is so robust they demoted their shadow spokesperson. They demoted him, took responsibility off him and gave him what they call 'junior portfolios'.

Mr Wingard: You're full of rubbish; same as yours.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: While gas and energy are a solitary mention—

Mr Wingard: He is provoking.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —in '2036', the word 'believes'—

Mr Whetstone: Keep your eyes on both sides of the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on two warnings.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —is mentioned 160 times. So, 'electricity', not once; 'believes', 160. It is a church.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: It's a cult.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a cult. It is not about policy. It is not about a party, about an idea, it is a belief. That is what it is about opposite. Then they wonder why they have lost four elections in a row. But they did have a policy at the last state election and that was to abolish the Residential Energy Efficiency Scheme that helps people improve the energy efficiency in their homes—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: Demand.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A form of demand management—which the Leader of the Opposition is advocating. But what he is really talking about is forcing people to turn their air conditioners off when it is hot using smart meters. That is demand management. Let's have a look at some of the other policies the Leader of the Opposition has announced. He is going to say that they will take nothing off the table; that is, we want all our energy options available, yet the one policy they have announced is to ban for the exploration of unconventional gas in the South-East, which is alongside infrastructure and pipelines in a gas-rich province.

Policy No. 1, destroy South Australian gas. So, we can have gas-fired generators, which are our thermal base. They want to stop more mining for gas. Do not believe me, believe Josh Frydenberg. He came up with a very simple slogan: 'More gas equals more jobs', yet members opposite want less gas. According to the federal government, what does that mean? They want fewer jobs. They say also, if it is commercial, that they want to re-open the Port Augusta power station. Who sold the Port Augusta power station to the private sector? Who sold it?

Mr Whetstone: Whose policy settings closed it?

Mr Picton: Uncle Rob.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Uncle Rob.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey, I would like you to leave the room for three minutes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Uncle Rob, the gift that keeps on giving.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey can leave the room for three minutes.

Mr Whetstone: Three minutes, with pleasure.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We know—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can come back. Just leave for three minutes.

The honourable member for Chaffey having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —that there are more moratoriums on the table for energy.

Mr Pengilly: Go to the naughty corner, mate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We heard the shadow minister say that there is no social licence for any other activity at Leigh Creek.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is interesting because the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy told me that the shadow minister said to them—

Mr Tarzia: Who said that? Name them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is warned for the first time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy said the shadow minister said there was no social licence for underground gasification at Leigh Creek.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He denies it. Okay, good. We have got that on the Hansard. Of course, we also have the renewable energy target. We have the actual opposition claiming that our RET is compulsory, that we will compel the state to meet that target, yet the only mechanism in place to meet the renewable energy target set by the commonwealth is their mechanism. We have no mechanism in place. When challenged, the opposition cannot mention what it is, other than the Development Act. That is what they think our mechanism is, by approving people who are taking advantage of the commonwealth scheme to put their wind farms and solar panels—guess where?—where the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

As to these social licences they are talking about and nuclear power, think of the hypocrisy. They say that nuclear power is on the table. Every nuclear power station needs somewhere to store spent fuel, yet they oppose any discussion at all on how to store spent fuel. Yet, apparently, nuclear fuel is an option for South Australia.

Mr Wingard: So, you support a dump?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell is warned for the first time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They support reopening a coal-fired power station that is uneconomic and that private operators could not run and coal is running out, and then we are hearing claims that there is no social licence for mining in the Adelaide Hills, no social licence for mining on Yorke Peninsula and no social licence for mining in the South-East for oil and gas. They are the guilty party.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:39): I will try to put a bit of fact and order into this debate. We have just heard a rant, a complete rant from the minister.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order on my right!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We have just heard a complete rant from the minister. We have heard 10 minutes of the minister with not one solution about what he is going to do to address the problems we have in South Australia.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Newland!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is no denying that, unfortunately, in South Australia we have the highest electricity prices in the nation and we have the least reliable electricity in the nation. In fact, we have had six blackouts in the last several months—six blackouts in South Australia since May. That is not including the 4,000 who lost power on Tuesday. We are talking about major blackouts.

The other thing that is very serious at the moment is that we in South Australia also have the highest unemployment in the nation. It is not an accident that we have the highest electricity prices in the nation and the highest unemployment in the nation. They go together. That comes on top of the government not very long ago promising 100,000 extra jobs in this state. They have come nowhere near that target. I think the last calculation was 12,000 extra over the last eight years or so, which is way behind the performance of any other state. In fact, the mineral resources and energy minister promised two Novembers ago that there would be an extra 5,000 jobs in the mining sector. We have gone backwards by approximately that many in the mining sector. These are the very real problems that exist in our state.

The history of how we got here starts not with privatisation of ETSA but with the State Bank, as the member for MacKillop quite rightly said. The Labor government drove this state to near bankruptcy through its complete financial mismanagement, primarily through the State Bank. When the Liberal Party came to government, it had absolutely no choice but to rectify that situation immediately. One of the things it did was sell ETSA. That was a necessary step.

The other thing I would say about that is that everybody in this place and the state knows that both South Australia and Victoria are privatised electricity markets. Both of them privatised at about the same time, yet in South Australia we have the highest electricity and the most unreliable electricity in the nation, but in Victoria it is the exact opposite. We are paying nearly double in South Australia what Victorians pay for their electricity. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with privatisation, but it has to do with the renewable energy target.

Let me say that we on this side want a clean planet and we want as little pollution as possible going into our atmosphere. We understand that we need to make a sensible, well-planned and well-managed transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy, but it cannot be the instant, overnight, ideological, zealous step the government wants to take. The state government went from no target to 20 per cent, to 33 per cent to 50 per cent. The state government was warned in 2005 by ESCOSA that if it went beyond 20 per cent renewable energy the grid would suffer. The state government was warned again in 2010 by ESCOSA about the same sort of thing.

The state government was warned by independent consultants the state government went to seeking advice in 2009 that if it went beyond 20 per cent the grid would suffer, that South Australian's would suffer. The state government decided to do it anyway. The state government decided to take that step regardless, knowing South Australians would suffer—from the smallest household to the largest employer, they would suffer. However, the government did it anyway for their own personal benefit, for their political purposes. They ignored all these warnings.

The next critical step is the closure of the Port Augusta power station, which the Treasurer alluded to. He made a lot of very spurious claims, but one thing he forgot to say, conveniently for him, was that Alinta went to the government in January 2015 and said, 'We need help. We need your support. Can you give us some support to stay open?' The Treasurer says that they could not possibly do that: 'We couldn't possibly interfere with the market. We could never support a business to stay open.'

At the same time, when they talk about the closure of Holden, they say that the federal government should have bent over backwards to do everything possible to keep Holden here, when in actual fact, Holden said very clearly, 'We don't care how much the federal government supports us financially, we are leaving anyway.' The state government says that the federal government should have helped them anyway, yet what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, from the state government's perspective. The state government says, 'No, of course, we should never have helped Alinta.'

Alinta had to close at some stage; there was no doubt about that. Whether it was going to be in two years, four years or six years, it needed to close as part of that sensible, well-planned, well-managed transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy, but to allow it to close in May 2016, as the state government did, was a very poor mistake. This state Labor government's energy policies forced the Port Augusta power station out of business. Why is that so important? Not because we want to burn coal forever, not because we are picking one company over another—it has nothing to do with that whatsoever—but because all South Australians have been suffering since that happened.

On average, forward contract prices increased 98 per cent when the Alinta closure was announced in June 2015. From the actual closure in May 2015, spot prices have gone up 91 per cent in the generation market. That price is way in excess of any level of support that Alinta sought from the state government to stay open for a little while longer. The hundreds of millions of dollars of cost to our economy since the Port Augusta power station closed could have been avoided if this government—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Had only paid hundreds of millions of dollars.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Newland is called to order.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —had actually wanted to put a relatively small amount of money to support that company to stay open. I am not saying that they should have given the company what it asked for, and I am not saying that the power station should have stayed open for as long as it wanted to.

The government should have used that as an opportunity to actually develop its own plan and say, 'Look, we're not going to do exactly what you want, Alinta, but we will give you this much, this type of support'—it may not have even been a cash component—'and we're going to give it to you so that we get to choose when you close, not so that you can stay open for as long as you want to.' The government should have said, 'We'll choose that you will close in two or four or six years,' or whatever the appropriate time frame was, so that we could have had a very sensible transition.

The government has had many opportunities to avoid this crisis, starting with premier Rann, continuing with Premier Weatherill, with Treasurer Koutsantonis supporting it all the way to the disadvantage of South Australians. But throughout all of that, the Liberal opposition has been putting forward very positive suggestions. We have actually been putting forward positive suggestions that the government has chosen to ignore. The government chooses to ignore our positive suggestions and then when they do not accept them, tries to pretend they never existed.

We have said for years that we should have exactly the same wind farm development application planning rules in South Australia as in other states, so that there would be consistent planning regs across all states, so that wind farms would go where the wind resource, the terrain and the connection to the grid is the best, not where the planning rules are the softest, as is the case in South Australia. We have said that we should have an electricity market impact assessment statement associated with every new wind farm development application so that if a new one that comes along will help us, fantastic, we will let it through, but if it is actually going to damage our electricity market, we would not support that.

We have called for one national renewable energy target—not the scrapping of the target, not no target, not a low target—one target that all states and the federal government agree to. One nation, one environment, one target—not the current state Labor government trying to extend and just look good and pick the biggest number it possibly can and make all South Australians suffer.

We have said that we support renewable energy, but with storage. There is nothing wrong with renewable energy. It is when it has no storage, is intermittent, cannot be relied upon and creates a volatile market that it is hurting us. We support renewable energy with storage. We want a sensible transition. We want South Australians to survive. We want South Australia to be a great state again and, until the electricity system is fixed, that will not happen.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:49): I rise to speak against this motion because it is an easy motion to speak against. This is a motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition not motivated by seeking facts, not motivated by seeking truth and not motivated by seeking improvements to our energy market or the arrangements that we have in South Australia. It is not about improving reliability or affordability: it is about the Leader of the Opposition seeking another tedious opportunity to play politics with this important issue in South Australia.

This is, once again, an effort by the leader to further politicise what has been an issue of grave concern to all South Australians. It is a further effort to sheet home blame to a government that no longer owns assets within the National Electricity Market, nor controls its operations. Rather than calling for better market performance or better market controls or even, despite what the member for Stuart would have you believe, not coming up with a coherent, cogent policy that will address the problems that we are confronting, this motion just seeks to play politics and echo the federal Liberal Party's lines on this issue, and is that not always the way with this leader.

I have to say that last September, when we suffered that statewide blackout, I thought just for one moment that there might be a glimmer of hope for the Leader of the Opposition. His first tweet that night said that this was not good enough and that there were questions that needed to be asked and answered. I do not think anyone could argue with that. It is not good enough that South Australia is being let down by poor reliability of our grid, let alone the operations of the National Electricity Market. There are serious questions that need to be asked, let alone answered, but within hours, of course, he had retreated from that position—that reasonable position which you would expect any political leader to take—and had fallen in once again behind his federal Liberal mates, parroting whatever they had told him he needed to say.

What was he parroting? It was deliberately the wrong information and deliberately the wrong line about what had caused this issue. He was deliberately misleading South Australians, particularly South Australians who had been affected by this, as to what the cause was, let alone whatever an appropriate remedy might be, and that is par for the course with this leader. It is par for the course that he abdicates his leadership position of a major political party in this state just so he can fall in behind his federal Liberal mates and do whatever they tell him to do.

When South Australia is being done over, he is the first one either to sit back or fall in behind those people—those federal Libs or those east coast interests—who are looking to do over South Australia time and time again.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need to remind members on my left of standing orders 129 and 131—get out your books if you are not familiar with them—and remind them that the courtesy of the house has to be extended to each member when they speak. Minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Every time those east coast interests and those federal Libs are doing over South Australia, he just sits there and backs them in 100 per cent. Let's look at the examples.

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is called to order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There was an $80 billion cut from the state's health and education budgets—$80 billion.

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mount Gambier, I am reminding you of the standing orders.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And what did the Leader of the Opposition do? He got in and backed his federal mates. What did he do when they dared Holden to leave and then gloated over their imminent exit? He backed in his federal mates; he would not stand up for South Australia. What did he do when we caught them trying to offshore the submarine build, contrary to the promise they made to the people of South Australia that they would be built here? He stayed silent, once again backing in his federal mates, parroting whatever they were telling him to say.

When the federal Liberals said that the ASC could not be trusted to build a canoe, where was he? He was completely vacant. He completely exited the field of play, refusing to stand up for South Australian workers. When the federal Liberal Party cut age pensions from South Australians, where was he? He was missing once again, doing whatever the federal Liberal Party told him to do, and that is exactly what he did in 2014 when they cut pensioner concession funding to the states, including South Australia. In fact, he even told South Australians that it was not true, that it was not even happening. He was lying to South Australians. Time and time again, the leader does over South Australians.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stuart has a point of order.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I ask the minister to withdraw his statement and apologise for saying the Leader of the Opposition was lying to South Australians.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stuart has asked you to apologise for calling the leader a liar.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps I can rephrase.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I withdraw and apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, on we go. He has apologised.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Leader of the Opposition backed in his federal mates and tried to tell South Australians that it was not happening, when the opposite was true. He knew what he was doing. The Leader of the Opposition must go home each night and wonder why he is even here. Is he just in the job to help other people do over South Australian interests? Because that is what he has done, time and time again. When it came to this energy issue, once again his true colours came out.

When it came to what the federal Liberal Party said should be the solution for this issue for South Australia, what did he say? He got in straight behind them and said that east coast coal interests are the answer for South Australia, not local gas interests, not the vast reserves of gas we have in South Australia. It was bin the South Australian industrial opportunities, bin South Australian jobs and get in behind those east coast interests. He is not interested in jobs in South Australia.

They are so wedded to coal, they are so wedded to the private interests that form their policy for them at a federal level, that I think the only surprising thing is not that they want to burn coal for electricity but that they are not burning tobacco, because that is their approach to industry policy. Whoever has got in their ear last forms their position, and the Leader of the Opposition gets in behind it 100 per cent. Of course, we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition today—

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is warned for the first time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —that, contrary to what the member for Stuart says, there is no room for renewables in their solution. The member for Stuart says there is some room: the leader says there is not. The leader says there is no room for that. In fact, the leader says we need demand management. What is that code for on a hot day like today? Turn off your air conditioners. Are you using a lot of power as a business? Are you using a lot of power as an industrial consumer? Turn off your business; shut down. That is the way we should be managing. That is the solution: the problem is too hard, so just shut it down.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Davenport has just come to my attention.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is no wonder South Australians think he is weak and not up to leading South Australia. He cannot stand up for our state. He is a patsy for his federal mates in Canberra. He is a patsy for east coast interests against the interests of South Australia. That is why Alexander nearly swooped in late last year to rescue the show.

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You see the member for Davenport go quiet. You see the conservatives on that side of the party go quiet and start navel-gazing because they know how close they came to rescuing the show—maybe, but probably not. Just last weekend, when I was out doorknocking amongst all those Labor voters whose support I am very fortunate to have, I came across an elderly woman. She said to me, 'Stephen, I am sorry, but I am a Liberal Party supporter.'

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is warned for the second time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: 'I am a Liberal Party supporter and I always have been, but I will tell you what, I can't stand that Steven Marshall.' That is what she said to me. That is the common refrain from the vast majority of Liberal voters, let alone swinging voters.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stuart has a point of order.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I ask you to direct the minister to come back to the substance of the motion, which has absolutely nothing to do with a lady's opinion about Steven Marshall.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to listen very carefully to the minister in his last 3½ minutes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: These people are so sick of a state Liberal leader who continues turning his back on his state's interests. He will not stand up for them, and that is why, more than a year out from the next state election, the most extraordinary move has been undertaken by the Leader of the Opposition. This awful advertising campaign tries to reposition him as somebody who actually cares about our state. What an unfortunate experience it is having to watch this or see it coming out of your television. We have the awful rictus of him looking enthusiastic around the table of European bottled water and a group of Liberal Party plants.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I implore you—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can't hear the member for Stuart's point of order.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I implore you to direct the minister back to the substance of the motion which has nothing to do with European bottled water or anything else that he is talking about.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I'm struggling.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: He has not mentioned electricity.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Newland, wouldn't it be a shame? I have to say to the minister I see nothing about European water here.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Davenport!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not even bottled water from Mount Franklin from Coca-Cola's bottling facilities, Deputy Speaker?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What a hypocrite! He was happy to goad and gloat over them leaving our state, wasn't he?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we could just get back to the debate for the last 2½ minutes, that would be good.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: They looked about as comfortable as Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange getting his Ludovico treatment. That is how comfortable those people looked around that table in that backyard when they were filming that ad. That is all the leader is, he is an uncomfortable charade of a political leader, a hologram of a political leader here in South Australia, and that is why people are fleeing away from him when it comes to whom they will support. That is why they are looking for alternatives, like the member for Stuart or maybe even someone from outside.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: When it comes to outsourcing, who does he bring in? Good old Uncle Rob from upstairs.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order. Deputy Speaker, please.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I think that might almost be the finish.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: If he is so scared to talk about the electricity prices—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Let's go on from Uncle Rob and electricity, shall we? The ETSA sale apparently was eminently necessary as soon as they assumed government in late 1993, despite four years later promising South Australia that they would not sell it; that is how urgent it was. Not only did they spend four years promising not to do it, they did not do anything in that four years using those funds to retire debt.

In fact, what did they do in the second four years of their term? What did good old Uncle Rob do? He ran four massive budget deficits. So, while he was out there arguing that he had to sell assets to pay off the credit card, he was racking up the debt. He was racking it up. That is the sort of false budget management that the Liberal Party not only sold ETSA for, but this is the sort of misleading mistruth that they put around about why they sold our energy interests down the river. What did it turn out for, compared to how the other states have sold these assets? A handful of magic beans, compared to the tens and tens of billions of dollars in the Eastern States.

This is how they have sold our state down the river. When you look at this motion, and you see hollow political accusations of blame and fault, we all know where it started. It started straight after that 1997 election when they sold our assets and they still do not have a policy to fix the mess they created.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:03): I rise to support the motion by our leader, the member for Dunstan:

That this house expresses its concern at the state of the South Australian electricity market and in particular, notes—