Motions

State Energy Plan

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (15:50): I move:

That this house—

1. Recognises South Australia is taking charge of its own energy future under the South Australian energy plan;

2. Recognises South Australia is leading the world with the next generation of renewable energy generation and storage opportunities;

3. Recognises that South Australian power for South Australians in the only plan that will embed renewable base load energy to the electricity sector that—

(a) puts downward pressure on power prices for households across the South Australian community;

(b) provides system security by sourcing, generating and controlling more of our electricity network; and

(c) moves to a lower emission electricity profile to help meet our COP21 Paris commitments.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I move:

That the time allotted for the debate be one hour.

Motion carried.

The future of our energy system is obviously one of the key issues facing South Australia at the moment, perhaps a defining issue facing South Australians. It goes to the heart of much of what we can achieve as a state, everything we are building on today, everything we hope to explore and create and become as a state in the decades ahead.

What we need is a reliable, affordable and clean energy future for our state. In the short to medium term, of course, we want to put downward pressure on energy prices for businesses and households and to end the load shedding events such as that we saw on 8 February. We also want the energy capacity to carry out major projects, such as our future submarine project, the big new mines that are being planned in our north and Eyre Peninsula and, of course, the revitalisation of Whyalla.

We also want to be in a position to fuel, with green and renewable energy, the high-tech industries still to emerge in this country and beyond. Indeed, instead of having our traditional role of being a more expensive energy-producing state, largely because of our very long distribution networks and our relative poverty of resources such as the coal that was burnt here—there were natural reasons why there was an incrementally higher price here in South Australia—we want to turn that around to have a low-cost energy future, which is not only clean and reliable but actually gives us an increment on the rest of the nation and, therefore, attracts energy-intensive industries to South Australia.

We want to continue to demonstrate leadership on climate change and to fulfil our commitments to the goals set down in the COP21 summit in Paris in 2015. We want to do that because we want to be good international citizens, but also for the reputational benefit that that accrues to our state. The imperative for action has never been more acute, yet the National Electricity Market is broken and is serving badly not only us but the nation. Worse still, the absence of a coherent national energy policy has led to the crippling of investment in new energy generation.

That is, of course, the nub of the issue. What we have seen is a decade of public policy stalemate, where the Labor Party has consistently been advocating for a price on carbon. Indeed, it was the South Australian government that led a series of other state governments. We were a leader in setting up the Council of Australian Governments. South Australia led that process when all the state governments were Labor governments. We led that process, and we commissioned the Garnaut report. The Garnaut report was taken over by the incoming Rudd government.

Remember that the 2007 election was all about climate change; in fact, so much so that we even had John Howard, at the behest of Malcolm Turnbull, the then environment minister, committing to a price on carbon. It is an extraordinary proposition that the now Prime Minister, then environment minister, had taken his own prime minister, John Howard, to that position—a position that many conservative leaders had arrived at, including even Margaret Thatcher—that there needed to be a response to climate change. Even if one did not necessarily share the view about the science, it was such an established consensus that it was a risk that had to be managed. That is what a conservative government would do.

Indeed, there is something quite bizarre about the fact that the propositions being advanced by Labor governments are propositions that are straight up and down, classical economic solutions; that is, an externality is causing market distortions. You put a price on that externality, so you get the efficient allocation of resources. This is straight up and down, classical economics, and it is being advanced by the Labor Party as a sensible and efficient way of responding to the proper allocation of resources yet, bizarrely, what are being advanced on the other side are solutions that can be categorised as command economy solutions, to the extent that there is any acceptance at all of the need to act.

In this environment, you would expect the public to demand bold plans and solutions from across the political spectrum, but that is not what is occurring here in South Australia. There is only one party—the Labor Party—that has a comprehensive, feasible and long-term plan in the form of South Australian power for South Australians. This plan, with its six key elements, has received broad support from across the business community and from across the commentariat that understands the question of energy policy.

What is extraordinary is we have a Liberal opposition in this state that has promised on more than one occasion that they would release an energy plan but have consistently broken every deadline that they have announced. First it was going to be May, then it was going to be upon the publication of the Finkel review, and now we know it is in the never-never. What we do know of their plan is it amounts to the abolition of the state-based renewable energy target, and what we know about that is that was announced on the same day as every other Liberal leader around the nation announced the exact same policy.

So it was not even a policy that was dreamt up. It was a policy forced on them by their federal colleagues to play into some national game that was being played to try to embarrass federal Labor. The essence of the Liberal Party policy in South Australia is for them to hand over control of renewable energy to those MPs who are handing around lumps of coal in the federal parliament. That is what the Liberal Party policy amounts to.

Our approach in March, consistent with the government's leadership on climate change and renewables, was to devise an energy plan, which was to ensure that more of South Australia's power is sourced, generated and controlled in this state because of the broken National Electricity Market. In the past four months or so, we have been implementing that plan and getting the results. For example, we have legislated to ensure that the energy minister has the power to direct electricity generators to turn on their plants if there is a supply shortfall.

We have distributed a new round of grants valued at $24 million to encourage companies to extract more gas. With the assistance of Tesla and Neoen, we are building the world's biggest lithium ion battery, and recently I announced that a state-owned electricity power plant will be installed ahead of summer, initially at the Lonsdale desalination plant and Holden Elizabeth site. We have seen tangible evidence not just of this plan being implemented but of the benefits of it being calibrated to work consistently with the existing market.

The truth is that it is a market, whether we like it or not. We did not support the privatisation, but it is a private market so, unless the government is going to take back every element of that market, it needs to calibrate its interventions consistent with the market. The evidence that this plan is consistent with the market and is not sterilising investor confidence is the decision by AGL to build its first generator in South Australia for years. Another is the decision by Pelican Point to now be back on full operation after major capital expenditure.

Those private sector commitments would not be made if our plan had not been properly calibrated as an intervention that was consistent with private sector investment. This contrasts with those members opposite. What is extraordinary is this notion that somehow we should turn on the old dirty coal-fired power station at Northern, the idea that we should ban unconventional fracking in the state's South-East for 10 years, the idea of building a nuclear power plant. None of these things is internally consistent. None of these things has any semblance of being able to make a relevant contribution to the challenges that South Australia faces at the moment.

What we need is national leadership. We need a state Labor Party together with a state Liberal Party that stand together and call for a national energy policy that integrates both climate change policy and energy policy. What we do not need is the Leader of the Opposition here essentially kowtowing to those in the Eastern States and indeed to the federal parliament, which is completely and utterly beholden to coal interests in this nation.

What we have seen in the debates that have occurred so far is that, every single step of the way when we have announced a positive contribution to solve the challenges that our energy crisis is throwing up to South Australia, we just see negativity and criticism when, on any view of it, the measures we are putting in place are sensible measures to advance South Australia's energy future. I commend the motion to the house. Our plan is working. It is being implemented as we speak, and there are further exciting announcements to come.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:02): The opposition takes the energy crisis in South Australia extremely seriously, but we do not take this motion seriously. It is just a political stunt by the government. The opposition wants to deal productively with this issue, but this motion is just a stunt by the government and a way of delaying debate on the Budget Measures Bill, which includes the bank tax. Deputy Speaker, as you would know, this is the last day of parliament for quite a while, and the government is doing everything possible to avoid time spent on that issue and is running this stunt instead.

We have just heard the Premier's version of events, but let me tell you the public's version of events—real, on the ground South Australian people's version of events. They have seen extraordinary price rises. They have suffered through blackouts. They have had job losses. There is extremely high unemployment across the state—embarrassingly high unemployment across the state, you would think, for this government. Perhaps worst of all, we have the highest level per capita of all states of outstanding electricity debt, payment plans for people in hardship situations and electricity disconnections.

That is the reality that South Australians are facing at the moment, so how did we get here? To evaluate the government's plan, we need to clearly understand why the government needs to put forward a plan. How did we get here? Sixteen years of Labor government—that is the first point to make. For nearly six years, the energy minister has had responsibility. The energy minister has had responsibility for exactly this for six years, and the government has actually been in place for 16 years, so it is very hard for them to turn and try to point the finger at other people.

Premier Rann was an active pursuer of popularity with the Green voters and he pursued wind farms for political purposes. There is nothing wrong with wind farms. There is no doubt whatsoever that we must make a transition away from fossil fuels towards renewables, but premier Rann started the current government, followed by Premier Weatherill, down this path of trying to jump overnight to an excessive level of renewable energy within our energy mix. He pursued wind farms which did not have storage, which meant that South Australia was awash with cheap electricity when it is windy but, of course, when it is not windy we do not have nearly enough electricity and it is very expensive.

This wholesale price volatility has been incredibly damaging to our nation. This wholesale price volatility has driven out base load generation because the base loaders cannot respond in a timely fashion to the ups and downs of the weather. Of course, this has resulted in very, very steep retail price increases. This has been going on for many years but, Deputy Speaker, you would be familiar that in July last year we had an average of a 12 per cent increase in retail prices and in July this year another 18 per cent on top of that.

That is the real-world outcome of the impact of the state Labor government's energy policy over the last 16 years. It flows through from policy, to generation, to markets, to retail prices, to customers, and they are the ones who are suffering and being punished by this government's policies. The Minister for Energy wants to blame everyone else for these problems. Last July, when the retail market announced their 12 per cent increases, his answer to everybody was to shop around. He said, 'Just shop around; that will be okay. Just go and find a cheaper supplier.' That was his answer. Then he blamed the retailers. He said he wanted to get a study done and asked ESCOSA to get a study done to look into the veracity of the retailers' increases in prices.

To his shock and horror, ESCOSA came back and actually said that, from a market perspective, the price rises were quite justified because they were all linked to an increase in wholesale prices. The government's policy had increased the wholesale market and that was flowing through. That is a great shame. I am not supporting the fact that the retail price has increased, but I am saying that the government was very quick to blame the retailers. However, ESCOSA said, 'Actually, no. It comes back to government policy and into the wholesale market.'

Of course, the energy minister then tried to blame AEMO and the National Electricity Market. He said it was their fault, that they were not looking after South Australia nearly well enough and that it was everybody's fault except the South Australian government's. While the minister tried to blame the national market, back on 29 September 2016 the minister said:

We are the lead legislator for the National Electricity Market. We have a lot of in-depth, in-situ advice given to us constantly by world experts based here in South Australia—people whose lives have been dedicated to the management of the National Electricity Market and its establishment…We have designed it, we have built it…

At one point in time the energy minister wants to claim credit for the national market when it is going well, but at another time when it is not going well he wants to blame them for being the cause of all the problems.

The minister then moved on to call the major retailers—with an 's' on the end of that word—'monopolies'. The minister has said many times that the retailers selling electricity into the South Australian market are monopolies. He said, 'They are using their monopoly power.' Nothing could be further from the truth with regard to the definition of the word 'monopoly'. Clearly, by definition, if there is more than one of them in the market then none of them are monopolies. That goes directly to the energy minister's understanding of markets and of how things really work.

However, the biggest mistake of all was the government forcing the closure of the Port Augusta power station. When he spoke just a little while ago, the Premier said that of course he was never going to go back to coal and that of course he did not want to do that. I can understand that. I said earlier that we do need to transition away from fossil fuels, but the opportunity the government deliberately threw away to contribute $8 million of South Australian taxpayers' money per year to keep the Port Augusta power station open for three more years—just temporarily—was one that should definitely have been taken.

That would not have plunged us headlong into a world of forever burning coal, but it would have allowed us to avoid many of the penalties that South Australians have suffered. The moment the closure of the Port Augusta power station was announced, forward contract markets rose. The moment the Port Augusta power station actually closed, spot wholesale prices rose significantly. That certainly could have been avoided on a temporary basis while the government worked their way through this problem sensibly. However, they decided, for purely political reasons, that they did not want to do that.

The Treasurer has made much of the fact that there was no guarantee that Alinta would keep the power station open. However, in their offer was a guarantee that, if they did not stay open, the government would not have to spend a cent towards that claim. It was an opportunity that needed to be considered, and should have been considered, and we know now the ramifications of not taking up that opportunity, that temporary opportunity to keep the Port Augusta power station open for up to three years as part of a sensible transition to where we need to be.

This government has punished South Australians with high prices, blackouts, job losses and unacceptably high unemployment in our state, and they say it is because they want to reduce emissions. They say that South Australia need to suffer at their hand so that they can reduce the emissions created in South Australia from the generation of electricity. However, buried deep in the budget, announced about six weeks ago, we see that the government is actually forecasting to increase emissions from the generation of electricity in South Australia.

Their own target for the 2016-17 year just ended was 55 per cent, and their own target for the 2017-18 year that we are in at the moment is 43.5 per cent. So they have caused all this harm for no reason whatsoever. For purely ideological purposes, they have punished all South Australians with high prices, job losses and blackouts, yet they, by their own budget, are going to increase emissions in South Australia.

After 16 years in government and trying to blame everyone else for the problem that they created, and after forcing the closure of the Port Augusta power station for purely political reasons, the government has finally accepted that they must address this issue. But very unfortunately for many people, it is too late. Deputy Speaker, I bring you back to the disconnection of houses. Thousands and thousands of houses across South Australia are without electricity, forcibly disconnected because they could not pay their bills.

There have been job losses, and employers are out of business because they are no longer able to offer employment to other people. I will give you an example of a jurisdiction that has taken on this issue. The province of Quebec in Canada in 2005 legislated that wind farms must provide appropriate levels of inertia into their electricity grid. It did that in 2005, but only now, in 2017, do we find our government trying to take responsibility for the problems that it has actually created.

Let us look at this plan. The first component of the plan is 200 megawatts of gas generation. We were told it would be in place by this coming summer. Just for the record, on 15 March this year on ABC 891, David Bevan asked the Premier very clearly, 'When will it be up and running?' The Premier said, 'By next summer.' When in March someone talks about next summer, they are talking about the very next summer to come.

Then we found out that, when it was not going to be ready by this summer, their plan was to burn diesel in generators instead. We have found out through the Budget and Finance Committee that they wanted to run diesel generators instead of gas. We also found out that it is going to cost, at that point in time, $110 million of taxpayers' money. We are told that all of this, for several years, is going to be in the cause of trying to reduce emissions, but part of the government's solution is to burn diesel in their generators, which, of course, is going to increase emissions.

Then we found out that these diesel generators are not as good as the government initially said they would be. When they explained their plan to use the same generators, initially running on diesel and then running on gas, they told us that they would be 276-megawatt capacity, but we found out afterwards—the government did not disclose this information, of course—that in high temperatures, which is exactly when we need them, they will only provide 205 or 206 megawatts of capacity.

The government was caught out. It would have been better if they had just said at the time, 'When we need these generators at times of very high temperature, this is what they will deliver.' It would have been much better for the government to say that. They have told us that these will be up and running for two years, but we now know that they have entered into a three-year lease for these generators, so there is the capacity, if the government chooses, to run the diesel generators for up to three years. We will just have to wait and see how that turns out.

In regard to the 100-megawatt battery, the opposition leader has called many times over the last two years for something like this to be done in principle, but we wonder why only minimal details are being released publicly by the government. Why will the government not explain exactly who is involved, exactly how it works, exactly what the costs are, exactly what the capacity is and exactly what the connection needs are, etc.? They just will not do that.

The third component is the energy security target. We know that many organisations which the government have, on other occasions, said that they respect and whose advice is important have now said publicly that the government's plan for an energy security target will not reduce the price of electricity. We also know, through an FOI from my office, that three other submissions were made on the energy security target that the government has not yet made public.

I would not mind betting that they are the three that say that the price of electricity will be forced up because of an energy security target. We will wait to see if they release those. One of the organisations that says that the government's energy security target will not decrease electricity costs, as the government says it will, is Tesla. Another one is Nyrstar. They are two very important players in South Australia now with regard to energy.

The fourth component is the minister's new ministerial powers. The minister said very clearly that he does not expect ever to use them; he just thinks that they need to be there as a backup. I support him having that backup if he thinks he needs it, but one of the key components of this much lauded by the government energy policy is the powers that the government says they will not use.

The fifth component is the $24 million PACE grants, an additional $24 million. I support the PACE program very strongly, and I support the government's plan to provide $24 million for the exploration of gas, but let me tell you that there is nothing new in this. Here we have another component of the energy plan from the government. It is something that already existed and, yes, they put some more money towards it, but it is just an extension of the plan that was already in place. They had already offered $24 million, and this is an additional $24 million, but it is certainly nothing new.

The last component is the government's own-use contract. Again, this was something that was out well before the government announced their plan back on 14 March. The government's own-use contract for energy is again something I support, but I am not sure why it gets special attention in the government's energy program, given that it was already in place and given that it was going to be announced and made public by the end of the financial year just finished, yet none of that information has been forthcoming. All of this for $550 million—$550 million of taxpayers' money. That is what the government wants South Australians to pay for this plan.

Unfortunately, South Australians have not shown a great deal of confidence in this plan. Why? Because it keeps changing. They have changed components of the plan, or delayed components of the plan, several times. Another reason is that there is no longer any commitment that it will reduce electricity prices. Back in the middle of March, when they announced their plan, the Premier and the energy minister tried to lead everyone to believe that it would reduce electricity prices. You cannot find them saying that now.

In fact, when he has his opportunity to speak shortly, I challenge the Minister for Energy to say, if he would, that this plan will reduce electricity prices and, if so, tell us when it will happen. I think everyone in South Australia wants to know when they will see cheaper electricity prices in this state. Another reason people do not have confidence in this plan is that Alan Finkel, who did the report for the federal government, makes it very clear that going it alone is not the answer for South Australia or for any other state. He says that going it alone is not the answer.

Another reason why people are not comfortable that this plan will do what the government said it will do is that ASX forward contract prices still show South Australia significantly above the rest of the nation. ASX forward contract prices for electricity show that, as far down the track as March 2022, South Australia will be 18 per cent above the national average. When I raised this issue in question time recently, the energy minister's answer was, 'Well, they will be going down. They will be going down,' as if somehow it is acceptable to stay 18 per cent above the national average.

Deputy Speaker, let me share with you another quote from the energy minister. On 14 February 2017, the energy minister said, 'The best forecast we have, of course, is from the ASX forward prices.' The energy minister says that is the best indication of forward prices we have. I am sure that is right: that is what the market says. A week after the government made the announcement of their energy plan on 14 March, forward contract prices for electricity increased for South Australia compared with what they were immediately before the government made their announcement.

Even now, months down the track, they are still predicting that years down the track South Australia will be 18 per cent above the national average. So all this for $550 million of taxpayers' money to fix the problem the government actually created themselves. Plus, there was $5 million last year and this year, and more to come, for the cost of the implementation team, and that is on top of the $550 million, and $2.6 million for the advertising campaign. With all the changes and concerns, it is not surprising that people are not comfortable that it will come in within the $550 million that the government has set for its price tag.

Deputy Speaker, let me just wind up by asking you the rhetorical question I posed in this place a few days ago. If I crashed your car and then told you not to worry about it because I was going to spend a lot of your money getting your car fixed, and then changed my plan about how I was going to get your car fixed, and then said to you, 'Look, don't worry. It will all be okay because it will come in within the high budget of your money that I plan to spend to fix your car,' I do not think you would be very satisfied with that.

I do not think that you would think that was a very good deal at all, but that is what the government is trying to do to the people of South Australia: spend $550 million of their money, and possibly more, to fix the problem the government created. They could easily have given themselves some breathing room if they had allowed the Port Augusta power station to stay open for three more years as part of a sensible transition plan.

Let me be very clear about this. The government tries very regularly to goad me, goad the Leader of the Opposition and goad the public on this topic. The Liberal Party will announce an outstanding energy policy. It will be far more considered than the government's, it will be far more responsible with taxpayers' money and it will achieve a far better result for South Australians. Our plan will deliver affordable, reliable electricity for South Australians, which is what they deserve, and our plan will be announced well in advance of the election.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (16:25): First, I will just point out a couple of things that I want to clear up for the record.

The shadow minister said that the Premier had promised that a permanent solution would be in place by summer, but only went on to quote parts of it. To quote the Premier: 'If I can get the (gas-fired) generator here before summer that would be great, but that is going to be tough.' As it turns out, the Premier has achieved just that. The permanent solution is here before summer, but in a temporary location. Quite frankly, the opposition are unable to even tack when conditions change, when the facts change.

I have just heard the shadow minister say that their energy plan will be released well in advance of the election, and I thank him for that. It is important for South Australians that we have a debate—a debate of ideas, a contest of ideas—so that South Australians can look at it, hold it up to the light, compare the two policies and campaign. There is only one problem: the Liberal Party are keeping their plan secret. We all know they are going to have a plan, but they are keeping it secret. The question is why, especially when you have the Leader of the Opposition saying that we are five minutes before the election; the election is imminent.

The Leader of the Opposition I assume thinks about things before he says them. I am guessing. So if we are five minutes from an election, and his shadow minister just said 'well before the next election', the question then is: why not release it now? Why not, instead of perhaps the shadow minister going on radio and constantly attacking what we are doing, he for a change can be positive and go out and talk about the Liberal Party plan? Well, there is a reason he will not: because they are keeping it secret.

Their plan relies on a number of things that they plan to do: point 1, they refuse to rule out before they even get into government privatising the generator that we have bought; point 2, they want to hand over our renewable energy target to people who pass around lumps of coal in the commonwealth parliament. They have already established that; and, point 3, I suspect that what they really want to do is to attack renewable energy. The reason they want to attack renewable energy is that they do not believe in it.

They are climate sceptics. They do not believe that we need to decarbonise: they think it is all a myth. They mock the battery, they mock wind farms, they mock firming, they mock demand management, they mock the idea of a solar thermal plant, they mock the idea of tidal and they mock the idea of new advances, whether they be hydrogen, other forms of storage or pumped hydro. We have seen no plans. We can only assume that they are keeping them secret so as not to frighten South Australians so that they finally see the opposition for what it really is—that is, a bunch of climate sceptics who have hated every single new renewable energy asset built in this state.

Fundamentally, you have to ask yourself why. Why would an opposition that aspires to be the government be so opposed to over $5 billion worth of investment that is here in South Australia that they cannot pick up and move, that is here operating and is the largest integration of wind and solar anywhere in the world? The opposition hate it.

I suppose it gets back to their core beliefs, and their core beliefs are not about diversifying the economy. Their core beliefs are not about government intervention. They believe that the market can deliver sustainable, cheaper prices better than the government. We have a very good period of time to compare what privatisation has done to electricity pricing compared to government intervention. Our $550 million intervention in the National Electricity Market was absolutely needed. Why? As the Premier said, we needed to retake our economic sovereignty. Why? Because the monopoly rent seekers, who currently own our generators and who are charging us monopoly rent for an essential service—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: How many of those monopoly rent seekers are there?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I cannot think of any major energy commentator who denies that the major retailers in South Australia are charging monopoly rent on South Australia; otherwise, why is it, as the opposition say, that we have unsustainably high power prices? Which one is it? Either they are charging monopoly rent or prices are cheap. They cannot even sustain the same argument in the same sentence. Prices are too expensive, but they are not charging a monopoly rent—that is the argument the opposition are actually putting publicly.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: How many monopoly players are in this one market?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, look up monopoly rent and understand what it means. The idea of monopoly rent is, I believe and the government believes, that since the privatisation of ETSA, what has occurred is that the market has deliberately removed generation from it to create scarcity and to create a greater demand for their electricity, so they can charge more for it. It is a very simple formula and perhaps the shadow minister would understand it, but unfortunately we have someone who does not believe that the market could possibly fail.

However, our implementation is well and truly underway. I am glad that the shadow minister quoted Dr Finkel. Dr Finkel is someone who has devoted the last six months of his life to coming up with a road map for Australia. He was tasked by the COAG Energy Council, appointed unanimously by all states, Labor and Liberal, with a request from the commonwealth government to build a road map. You compare his road map to what we have done and there is an eerie similarity. Both have market mechanisms. Both have greater standards. Both want more generation and investment. Both are trying to return a surplus of supply to the market. Both want to decarbonise. Both want to take advantage of new technologies. Both want to see more investments in Australia, especially in things like batteries.

For me, the most galling part of the commonwealth government and the opposition's narrative on the battery came when minister Frydenberg was in Adelaide to co-launch what was at that stage the world's largest grid-scale battery in the Southern Hemisphere from AGL because they had given a $5 million grant. I understand it was about five megawatts. But when we announced our 100-megawatt lithium ion battery, the largest grid-scale battery anywhere in the world, it was mocked by the same people. So five megawatts, massive breakthrough in technology;100 megawatts, the big pineapple. This is what we are dealing with: hypocrisy.

Whatever we do, whatever we say, whatever plan we implement and whenever any independent analysis says we are doing the right thing, the opposition and the commonwealth government will say no. There is one fundamental thing that they cannot walk away from and that is the truth, and the truth is that every state and the commonwealth government have signed this country up to decarbonise through the Paris agreement—every single state. We are the only country in the world without a road map to get to that decarbonisation point.

What Dr Finkel has done is given us a road map through 50 recommendations, and this government—this cabinet—has endorsed those 50 recommendations. I was tasked to go to the COAG to support those 50 recommendations on behalf of the people of South Australia. We went there and we did it.

Of course, there was one very important target. As the Premier has constantly said verbatim, since the NEM has been established, we have lost over 5,000 megawatts of generation in untimed and unplanned closures. Why have they closed them? To maximise the return on their existing plant. Do not underestimate the impact on the sale price of other generators with the closure of Hazelwood. Do not underestimate the savings you get from lower operating costs, less wages, less mining costs and less generation but making more profits.

The shadow minister is fond of going to the ASX. Perhaps he should plot the share price of AGL, Origin and other major retailers in the Australian market over the last 12 months and see how those share prices have gone up and up and up to match the prices that they are selling to South Australians. They are pricing risk with us. Why? Because they have closed generation, made it more scarce and are charging a premium on risk in case a generator breaks down, because there is less redundancy in the system that they created.

The only way that we are going to get more base load generation into the system, to complement the transition to renewable energy, is through a mechanism that incentivises investment, which is what the Premier has been banging on about for as long as I can remember, through his advocating for an energy intensity scheme, which is basically an incentive for people to invest in generation that is synchronous and low-carbon emitting, so you get more generation and an oversupply of electrons that are subsidising the market, which lowers prices.

The beauty of this scheme is that it was not invented by the Premier or me or any Labor MP. It was invented by whom? Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull came up with it through the work of Danny Price from Frontier Economics. We hired exactly the same group that the Prime Minister hired when he was developing his energy and climate policy. We agree.

It is now national Labor Party policy to have an energy intensity scheme. Why? Because we want to see that investment. Because right now the only incentive in the market for new investment is a RET—not our RET; not the South Australian-based RET. The only renewable energy target in this state that pays new renewable energy to operate is the commonwealth government's renewable energy target.

Until you have another market mechanism in place to incentivise synchronous thermal generation to complement that transition, you will get more and more renewables. We support more renewables, but we also recognise the transition, which is why we brought in our EST, which has been mocked by the opposition. It will be very interesting, given that they are always thinking ahead by mocking the EST, if the commonwealth government adopts their CET. Will they mock that as well? They are very similar mechanisms, almost identical, designed to fold into each other.

Again, no doubt, the geniuses opposite who have been working on this have thought this through. Perhaps maybe, just maybe, Josh Frydenberg will win the debate, and just maybe they will introduce a clean energy target. Then what will the opposition say when they have been opposing a mechanism for investment into the system? What will they say then? 'That was then, that was different, we now support a CET; before, we did not.' Or, perhaps, they will actually release their policy rather than keeping it a secret and we will know exactly what it is that they are planning to hand over to Canberra.

We are on the side of the CSIRO, the Chief Scientist, the COAG Energy Council, AEMO, the AER, the AEMC, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Conservation Council and every other major employer, other than the Minerals Council, that supports all 50 recommendations of Finkel. In fact, I understand that Ms Clare Savage of the Business Council of Australia, has been appointed to the energy security board to work on the implementation of Finkel. Yet there are two bodies that do not support all 50 recommendations of Finkel: the people who commissioned the report and members opposite.

I have to say that it is one thing to complain—and I think oppositions have a right to complain; that is basically a large part of their existence—but they also have a responsibility to offer alternative policy. It is not sufficient to get up in August in 2017, a month after the opposition leader said we were five minutes from the election, and say they will be releasing their energy plan soon, when on numerous occasions they have said they will release their energy plan when the Finkel review is released and, once Finkel is released, they will await the response from the commonwealth government. Now it is 'soon', it is 'imminent', it is 'well before the next election'. What does 'well before the next election' mean? The only thing I have to go on is what the shadow minister said previously during the last election about the resources policy.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Which shadow minister?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Before the last election?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, you.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: This will be interesting.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know where you are trying to go. I understand in that time the opposition was saying 'soon' and 'imminently' there was a whole range of policies that were not released, such as the public transport policy. I understand there was a resources policy that was not released. I also understand there were a number of other policies that were not released as well. I think it is very telling that the shadow minister does not have the courage to release something he has been working on. The question is why.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:41): I thank the Premier and the Minister for Energy, the Treasurer. We have a comprehensive plan to take charge of South Australia's energy future, to support reliable, affordable and clean energy for all South Australians. As we know, we are making rapid progress in its implementation. That is not all we are doing, however. We also have a number of important energy efficiency and energy affordability initiatives aimed directly at consumers.

Recently, we announced the energy discount offer for concessions customers. It prioritises those most vulnerable households to ensure that the people who can least afford to meet the increased cost of energy and who often end up with the most expensive energy plan, are provided with the option of a better deal. The state government will invite energy retailers to submit expressions of interest to become preferred suppliers to low-income South Australians who currently receive the concession.

We know that the majority of people receiving energy concessions are on standing contracts and we will seek to negotiate a much better deal for this group of people. Energy retailers will be asked to offer benefits for eligible customers, including better prices, bill smoothing, removing late fees and flexible payment options that do not involve additional costs to customers. As part of this process, retailers will also be asked to demonstrate how they will facilitate the change of retailers for concession holders.

It is important that these customers are provided with better pricing without any hidden costs. The procurement group has held its first workshop to scope the terms for the expression of interest that will be released to the market. The group is looking closely at the issues involved in ensuring that South Australian concession customers get the best deal for them.

This is not all that we are doing to help energy consumers. Just yesterday, the government hosted the Energy Efficiency Expo at the Adelaide Convention Centre. The event connected South Australian businesses looking to improve their energy productivity with South Australian businesses offering energy-efficient solutions. The expo built on the ever-increasing demand for energy efficient products and services, and at the same time promoted local energy-efficient companies and therefore supported local jobs.

At this expo the Premier and the assistant minister to the Treasurer, Chris Picton, launched the EnergySmart South Australia initiative. Under this program, social entrepreneur and energy efficiency expert Jon Dee will be running a series of energy-efficiency workshops across South Australia aimed at householders and small businesses.

The workshops will provide consumers with straightforward advice to help them to reduce energy consumption and save money on their energy bills. Attendees will learn how to negotiate a better energy deal for their home or business, how to cut the cost of lighting, heating, cooling and hot water, and how to save money with insulation and solar energy. Those who cannot attend in person can access this advice from the EnergySmart South Australia booklet. It will be available at libraries, community centres, electorate offices and online at the energysmartsaver.com.au website.

This program builds on other energy-efficient programs introduced by this government. For example, our Retailer Energy Efficiency Scheme has been supporting households and businesses since 2009. The scheme, which is administered by the Essential Services Commission of South Australia, requires larger energy retailers to help households and businesses save energy and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. This is achieved through energy efficiency and audit targets that need to be met by electricity and gas retailers. More than one in three households has benefited from the scheme since it commenced.

Since its commencement, energy retailers have installed a huge volume of energy-saving items in South Australian homes and businesses: over 2.5 million energy-saving light globes; more than 340,000 standby power controllers; more than 170,000 water-efficient showerheads; and, on top of this, more than 45,000 home energy audits have been delivered to low-income households through the scheme. Consumers can access our energy advisory service for free.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:46): I rise to respond to some comments mainly from the energy minister and what he had to say regarding policy going into the last election. Not only that, now he wishes to blame everyone else as to power prices and why we have this energy debacle in this state. He has said that in the past, but now he is saying that everyone supports the government's plan, the overly expensive $550 million taxpayer-funded plan. You cannot have it both ways.

The Minister for Energy has blamed everything from AEMO to generators and everyone in between for the crisis that has hit South Australia. It is the green ideology that has destroyed businesses and business confidence it in this state. Not only that, it has knocked out people who just cannot afford to pay their electricity bills. The energy minister wants to have a crack at the previous energy policy, or the lack of it—as he states it—from the previous shadow minister for energy. This was before the last election.

That is interesting because the previous shadow energy minister was the member for Waite, his own cabinet colleague, who he is now having a crack at. Again, the energy minister is trying to have it both ways; he is trying to be cute and have a crack at the opposition; and he is having a go at his most recent found friend. The simple fact is that the spokesperson on this side of the house for energy policy before the 2014 election was the member for Waite, who is now, I guess, the very good friend and cabinet colleague of the energy minister. What hypocrisy.

We have seen this state plunged into darkness because of this ideology. We have seen what happened on 28 September with the statewide blackout because of one circuit breaker, which was essentially how it worked, and the whole state went out, which is outrageous. There was a power pole breakdown 250 kilometres north of Adelaide, yet we had all the lights go out and all the transmission go out all the way to Mount Gambier. We had issues on 8 February this year when we had load shedding, and my electorate was caught up in that. It is out of control.

The shadow minister has rightly said that, for $24 million over three years, we could have supported the power station at Port Augusta. This would have been a far better and a far cheaper response from the government, as an interim measure as we transition to cleaner fuels and cleaner generation into the future. In anyone's language, $24 million is far better than committing $550 million of other people's money. It is taxpayers' money.

Governments do not have their own money; it is taxpayers' money, yet once again we see how Labor socialist governments want to splurge, throw caution to the wind and throw money to the wind. They do not care—whatever it takes. We were going to have a permanent gas-fired power station at one stage for $360 million. Now we have seen that we are going to run out nine power stations, couple them together on B-doubles and that will supposedly be the saviour for the state. However, we must be reminded that this is diesel generation, which throws their ideology right out the window.

As the shadow minister said, we will have a comprehensive policy, which will be coming out soon. We will show the way to keep the lights on in this state, to promote investment, to keep jobs in this state, to stop people exiting this state and to stop people reeling back in horror at the prospect of paying 150 per cent more for their power costs into the future based purely on unreal expectations of green energy and not taking the time to transfer in the appropriate way so that we can have affordable lifestyles, so that our businesses can function in this state and so that South Australians can have a decent future and just keep their lights on and keep their businesses running and so that the most vulnerable can at least switch on their heaters at this time of the year to keep warm.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:52): This motion is just one more cruel hoax on the long-suffering power consumers of South Australia. Instead of patting himself on the back, as this motion seeks to do, the Premier should be apologising to each and every South Australian. This motion refers to the government taking control when it should never have lost control of power and reliability of electricity supply here in our state in the first place.

This motion refers to an energy plan that the Premier announced in March with the promise, 'This plan will reduce the price of electricity absolutely.' It is no wonder that Labor has run out of time and run out of trust on this question because, far from power prices going down, as the Premier promised the people of South Australia, the current ASX forecast of future electricity prices shows that for the next four years South Australian prices are expected to remain 18 per cent above the national average.

How is this self-serving motion helping those thousands of South Australians who are on electricity hardship repayment plans, if they have not already had their supply disconnected? About one in 50 South Australian consumers are now repaying debt under a retailer's hardship program. This is absolutely appalling. The average electricity debt of customers entering a retailer's hardship program is now $1,081. The average debt of those on hardship programs is $1,706, the highest in Australia.

These are not just statistics. Behind them are thousands of stories of hardship, even hopelessness, of the elderly frightened to keep a heater on during a cold winter night and of businesses having to lay off workers because of crippling power bills. The Premier went off to preen in Paris about his 'international experiment with renewables' while back home thousands of families suffered because of the incompetence of his policy and his government.

This motion oozes with hypocrisy. This motion refers to an energy plan which, piece by piece, is falling apart, and not only on the test of whether it reduces power prices. When he announced it, the Premier said that his brand-new gas generator could be available before this summer, when we now know that for the next two summers we will have instead temporary, dirty, expensive diesel generation. A central element of the plan was the energy security target. Its implementation has been delayed by at least six months while Tesla, a company the Premier fawned just a few weeks ago, has said that the target will not drive more emissions or low cost electricity generation.

Over time, this government has also fawned before the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Al Gore in talking about energy policy. It would prefer to cuddle up to celebrities than produce sound and practical policies in this state. When everything has fallen apart, it has blamed everyone and everybody else: the weather, the federal government, AEMO, generators, retailers. What this government has never had the guts to do is to own up to the mistakes that it has presided over, the sky-high prices and the unreliable grid. This motion is an absolute disgrace and should never ever have been brought before this parliament.

Motion carried.

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau.