Parliamentary Committees

Public Works Committee: Installation of Hybrid Turbines

Ms VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:01): On behalf of the member for Colton, I move:

That the 575^th report of the committee, on Installation of Hybrid Turbines as a Long Term Backup Power Plant, be noted.

The installation of hybrid turbines as a long-term backup plant needs to be noted by this parliament. In March 2017, the South Australian government released its energy plan to address concerns of both business and residents regarding energy reliability, capacity and cost. This included the establishment of a gas-fuelled backup power plant. This project is for the establishment of the backup power generators by 1 December 2017 to ensure that capacity is available during possible load-shedding events that may occur during the summer season.

Four generators will be located at the Adelaide Desalination Plant at Lonsdale and five generators will be located at the GMH site at Elizabeth. This will provide a total capacity in excess of 200 megawatts, including on days with temperatures in excess of 40°. These sites have been chosen because of the ability to access the distribution network at 66,000 volts, the sites' close proximity to substations with redundant capacity that will allow at least 100 megawatts in contingency events, and adequate electrical separation between the two sites.

These generators will initially be fuelled by diesel as neither of these sites have a gas connection. The committee was informed that a gas-fuelled facility could not be installed and operational by 1 December this year, and priority was given to these facilities operating this summer because of the type of fuel used in the short term. Investigations are underway to identify a permanent location for the backup power plant with access to a gas connection. It is anticipated that the nine generators will be relocated after the 2018-19 summer.

SA Power Networks, on behalf of the government, has contracted APR Energy to provide the nine TR2500 hybrid (gas-diesel) generators on a 13-month lease agreement, which includes the ongoing maintenance and operation for these 13 months. The lease agreement can be extended for a further 12 months if required. As part of this agreement with APR Energy, there is an option to purchase the nine generators at the end of the 13-month lease period but before the expiry of 25 months from the commencement of the lease. This is the government's preferred option. Given this, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:05): With regard to the Public Works Committee's Installation of Hybrid Turbines as a Long Term Backup Power Plant report, I can understand why the government is doing this, because they have got themselves in a real bind. The government were told way back in 2009, by two independent consulting organisations that the government went to and paid money to receive advice, that they were heading in the wrong direction with regard to their energy policy.

They had that advice in writing and they ignored it. They were told at the time that if they increased their renewable energy target from 25 per cent to 33 per cent it would have a very negative, very harmful impact upon South Australia's energy grid and prices to consumers and reliability of supply. With that information in hand, the government then did move from 25 to 33 per cent anyway and, as we all know, subsequently have moved to 50 per cent, only exacerbating the problem.

Let me be very clear: I and my opposition Liberal colleagues believe very strongly that we need to make a transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy, but it must be done in a well-planned, well-managed way, not in the haphazard way whereby the government has overprovided permission to install too much wind energy too quickly in our state, and that wind energy being without any sort of supply so that the intermittent generation, which in itself is a terrific thing, can then be stored so that it can be used and dispatched upon demand. It is the lack of that link between the intermittent generation and the dispatch on demand that has got this government into so much trouble.

Having created this problem over many years knowingly, the government now says that it wants to spend $550 million of taxpayers' money to fix the problem that the government itself created. Part of the plan was announced: a $360 million permanent government-owned, government-operated gas turbine to be in place and operating in Adelaide by 1 December this year. Of course, that commitment evaporated and has been changed many times. As I said, I can understand why the government is doing it, because they have got themselves in a bind. They have their own backs up against their own wall, so to speak.

That commitment soon changed, from being a gas generator in place by this coming summer to being diesel generators in place for two years. The government went out to tender, looked at all the options and realised that what they had promised was not what they were going to do, that it was actually an inappropriate commitment because it was not practically possible. Once they realised that, they went to these diesel generators, which is what we are looking at in the Public Works Committee at the moment.

Everything in the main body of the report is very straightforward and completely above board and completely appropriate, but I would like to draw the house's attention to the dissenting report by the member for Mount Gambier and the member for Unley. I will not read through all of it, but the two key components they have jointly identified are:

[They] have seen no evidence that all potential options to increase the capacity and reliability of power supply in South Australia, at least possible cost to taxpayers have been adequately assessed by the government.

[They] do not believe that the Government has been transparent with the public about the full potential costs of this plan.

We know both those points to be true. We know both those points to be very valid because, here in this house in debates and in question time, we have asked questions about those issues and the answers have not been forthcoming. The media have asked questions about those issues, and the answers have not been forthcoming.

The government says that it wants to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money to build a generator to provide backup security to the South Australian energy grid. The government itself says that it expects it to rarely be used, if ever. The government will not come clean to the people of South Australia about exactly how the government wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money.

I do understand the need to have security. I do understand the fact that the government essentially vandalised South Australia's electricity supply. They had the opportunity to spend $8 million per year for three years to keep the Port Augusta power station open for three years while we had what I referred to before as a sensible, well-planned and well-managed transition to a cheaper, more reliable and more environmentally responsible energy system in South Australia. But they decided not to spend $23 million over three years; they decided to spend $550 million instead.

That goes to the mismanagement of the government's energy policy, it goes to the mismanagement by the government of the public's money and it goes to an endemic problem within the government which this report highlights: the secrecy with regard to their wanting to go about trying to fix things. Deputy Speaker, as you would know, the Liberal opposition has released its energy policy, and there are many components, which have been independently assessed by ACIL Allen, which will deliver lower electricity prices to the people of South Australia.

Very importantly, we have developed a policy which will deliver lower prices without sacrificing reliability of supply and without sacrificing any environmental aspects. We have of course had to include in our policy some elements of the government's policy. Let me be very clear about that: the only components of the government's energy policy we have included in our energy policy are those components to which the state government has already contractually bound our state. We have disregarded every aspect of the government's policy to which we are not already contractually bound and added better, more effective and more constructive components in our policy.

Back to where those policies come directly to this report, the state Liberals have said very clearly that we will run with the diesel generators because the government has already contracted the state to them, but we will not run with the gas generator—the purchase of those assets—after that time. There are a few very good reasons for that. One of them is that we will deliver at least as much reliability of supply to South Australia in other more cost-effective ways. You will remember the comments about the fact that there was no evidence to say that the government plan was going to be delivered at the most effective, lowest cost to taxpayers, which the member for Mount Gambier and the member for Unley put in their dissenting report.

We also have independent modelling that says it will be a one in 10 year event for a period of years, and it will be a one in 20 year event for another period of years in which it would be expected that the generator would need to come into the market to avoid a supply shortfall. I am a realist. I understand that a one in 10 year event could occur tomorrow; of course I realise that. I realise it may never occur either. We have provided a better way to provide that security. The ACIL Allen report also said that if the one in 10 or the one in 20 year event occurred, they predict that a maximum of 162 megawatts of supply shortfall would occur. The government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to deliver far more than that.

I do understand the government's point where they say, 'Well, we might get our money back in the one blackout.' My point is that there are better ways to provide security of supply to the people of South Australia without wasting their money in this way. There are smarter ways to deliver the same security and spend less of their money in doing so. One of the most important key issues when it comes to considering how this report, and the diesel generators and potential gas generator that it refers to, play into the difference between energy policies of the two major parties is that our policy has been independently modelled. It shows that our policy will drive down the wholesale price of electricity, which will flow through to a reduced price of electricity to consumers. The government say that will happen, but they have provided no independent modelling to say so.

In summary, the public has a choice between a Labor energy policy, which they say will drive prices down, but they cannot find anybody—they certainly have not produced anybody—who will confirm that. With regard to security and environment, the Liberal Party has a more responsible policy that we say will drive down prices, and we do have independent evidence that says our policy will drive down prices for South Australian consumers without sacrificing security of supply or the environment.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:15): This is an interesting event that has occurred, with the government coming out with an energy policy but refusing to own up to what the problem is. The government remains in denial, and the simple reason for that is that the government absolutely knows and understands what the problem is: their ideological headlong charge to incorporate renewables to the level that they have in our electricity sector in South Australia. Everybody in Australia, apart from the Labor government in South Australia, understands the problem.

I have spent most of my life coming up against problems, working out how to resolve them and how to move forward. The one fundamental thing I have learned every time I have come up against a problem is that the first step in moving forward is to ask the question and get the answer to, 'What has caused the problem?' If you do not ask yourself that question and you do not get some sort of reliable answer, it is impossible to work forward in any cogent way, and that is what this government continues to do. As I said, the government continues to do that because it is too afraid of the consequences of owning up to being the villain in this whole scenario. It is the government's 15 to 16 years of bad policy that have left South Australia vulnerable to the highest electricity prices in the world.

The manufacturing base of South Australia was built on the fact that we had a low-cost structure in this state. We were able to provide good, solid, reliable electricity at a good price comparative to everybody else in the world, all those markets that we wanted to sell our manufactured goods to. Electricity is a large component of the cost of manufacturing. The fact that we now have the highest electricity prices in the world has put us at a huge disadvantage. In itself, that is bad enough, but to compound that disadvantage we have probably the most unreliable electricity supply system in the developed world, and the government takes no responsibility whatsoever for that.

This government would have us believe that it was the sale of ETSA that caused these problems. That was a long time ago. I suspect that even today our average and our peak electricity consumption is still less than it was when ETSA was sold from public ownership, so it was not that there has been no new investment. The capacity of those privatised assets was still large enough to meet the needs of South Australia. However, as I said, with this ideological drive to have more and more wind farms and more and more rooftop solar panels installed in South Australia, we saw a huge competitive disadvantage thrust upon the traditional generators, to the point that the Northern power station is now closed and in the process of being demolished—a huge shame.

The Pelican Point cogeneration plant, which is the most efficient generator probably in the whole of Australia but certainly within South Australia, was also mothballed for a number of years. It is a plant that is probably close to, if not more than, twice as efficient as the old Torrens Island power station; that is, it probably produces only half the carbon footprint per unit of energy produced and that is because it uses the world's best technology.

It is a modern power plant, but that was the power plant in South Australia that was mothballed for a number of years for one reason and one reason only—this government saw to it that it was competed out of the market predominantly by wind farms and rooftop solar panels, which had a very low level of reliability and probably a very high cost of energy output. We are the beneficiaries of those dumb, dumb, dumb policies.

Let me add the one thing I think the people of South Australia need to be aware of. The Treasurer and energy minister revealed to the parliament earlier this year, in one of the first or second sittings weeks back in February or March, that $7 billion—I think he said in excess of $7 billion—has been expended in South Australia on renewable energy generation in the last period—$7 billion. If we were of a mind to, I reckon we could have had a nuclear power plant for that. Our energy security could have been guaranteed into the foreseeable future for that amount of money and we would all be a hell of a lot better off.

But this government's ideology is not to embrace something that is proven, reliable and cheap. Its ideology is to seek to get preferences from the Greens and to try to capture some of the green vote itself, so it went down this path of embracing renewables. This government even changed the planning laws temporarily to allow development approval to be gained by a proponent of a wind farm in my electorate.

There might have been a couple of others throughout the state, but I remember there was one in my electorate that took advantage of a short-term change to the planning rules in South Australia, yet the Premier and the minister would have us believe that all these renewables were driven by the federal government and the renewable energy target. That is a nonsense. If that were the case, we would see wind farms all over the rest of Australia too. I do not think there are any, or if there are they are only very recent. I do not think there are any wind farms in Queensland.

This problem has been created by this government. If spent wisely, $7 billion would have seen our security future guaranteed but, no, it was more convenient for this government to lie to the people of South Australia about our energy future, and to continue to do that, and to try to hoodwink people into supporting it because it believed it was demonstrating green credentials—a very poor way to govern.

The government in a lot of its energy plan has admitted the failings of the past. In this particular proposal, the government has admitted that you need backup, that when you use a power generation system for a significant part of your needs, and that system is unreliable, you need a backup. That is why we no longer have the Northern power station. It was treated by this government as a backup power station, yet it had to keep the boilers running 24/7 and was only called on occasionally during the day to supply our needs as the wind dropped out and the sun went down, but it had to keep shovelling coal into those boilers.

As a consequence, it lost hundreds of millions of dollars over a few years. That is why it closed down, yet the minister would say it was not closed down because of renewables. It was closed down because of renewables. If this government had not charged headlong into bringing more and more renewables onto our grid, the Northern power station would still be operating, Pelican Point would never have been mothballed and we probably would never have had the blackout that cost us hundreds of millions of dollars a bit over 12 months ago.

I note from the report that the installation of the sites here will allow at least 100 megawatts in a contingency event. It seems to me that we have 150 megawatts proposed for one site and 120 megawatts for the other. Of the 270 megawatts that are being proposed, it seems that only 200 megawatts may be available. Again, the report does not seem to canvass why that would be so and why we are installing 270 megawatts when only 200 megawatts might be available. I wish my time were longer.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:25): I rise to speak on the Installation of Hybrid Turbines as a Long Term Backup Power Plant, the 575^th report of the Public Works Committee. Let's make it perfectly clear that this is not going to be hybrid generation: this is diesel generation, diesel generation that this Labor government have been forced to bring in as an emergency measure because of their failed electricity and power reliability policies for almost 16 years.

I have talked about some of these issues in the past when we had the former premier. He had little turbines that he was putting on top of this place, until they worked out they were little more than toys. It was just a gimmick to make out that the government had green credentials. Then we have the overinstallation of wind energy in this state where around 50 per cent of our energy, something like 1,700 megawatts, is wind energy so the government can spruik their supposed green credentials. The only way these turbines work, obviously, is when the wind is blowing.

Yes, we have a massive amount of solar installed around the state. I have declared in here before that I have solar panels on two of my properties. The issue is that it is because I need to save money, and it does come at significant expense. I note some of the commentary in the media about people with solar panels, but they do come at significant expense. There are far better plans coming online through different companies at the moment, where people can borrow a sizeable amount, if not the whole amount, to install panels on their property. Again, it only puts power into the home system when the sun is shining.

We hear lots of talk about power plants going in around the state and the so-called big battery, which will soon be outdone by the 300 megawatt big battery at Morgan. The Elon Musk battery is only 100 megawatts. You still need the sun to shine or the wind to blow to load these batteries. At the end of the day, we must reflect on where all these green policies have led this state. On 28 September last year, we saw the absolute chaos of a few towers that collapsed 250 kilometres north of Adelaide and power was completely disrupted right across the state, from the north of the state right down to Mount Gambier.

It is completely outrageous that, effectively, our power system is run on one circuit-breaker. It is madness. I have been informed that back in the day when Northern was operating, there were five circuit-breakers, for want of a better word, five systems, so that if one went down it would not pull the whole state down. It is just ridiculous. Who would set up a state to fail like that? The South Australian Labor Party.

It has brought the highest power prices to this state, and they are the highest prices in the world, and the least reliability. It is just outrageous that we are living in basically what many people look at as a Third World state. It has to be a lot better, and it is just madness that we are here. I note that it has been in less than my lifetime that I have had electricity hooked up at Coomandook on the farming property. It was only 1966 when it went through. We still have the old 32-volt engine room along the homestead; I might have to fire it up again with a backup generator the way things are going.

What really gets me is that you do not see the Premier out spruiking the fact that he will be burning millions of litres of diesel when these generators are running to keep power going in this state, to keep the lights on, to keep the air conditioners on and to keep it so that people can stay alive in comfortable surroundings. How green is diesel? I think everyone can work that out. This is because of failed policies. In emergency, the government have had to bring in nine B-doubles of diesel generation to keep this place going.

When 28 September happened—the big blackout, or black Wednesday, as I call it—there was at least $450 million worth of damage across the state, and there were multiple reports of backup generation not kicking in. On the West Coast around Port Lincoln, it did not work; at Flinders Hospital, it did not work; at a whole range of places in various scenarios, power generation failed. Since then, we have had not just industry put in either backup generation or go completely off grid. I have talked before about the new almond hulling plant at Swan Reach, with diesel with battery backup, where it was far cheaper. In fact, it will be hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars cheaper over time for accessing power than hooking into the network.

More and more people are doing this, so over time we will have a grid, essentially, that will not connect anywhere, with more cost to those on the grid. Because of the cost to hook up and the cost of paying for that power, it will be completely out of reach for people, so they will do their own thing. There will be far more of that going into the future, whereas we on this side of the house put up a policy that includes an interconnector to New South Wales. It is interesting that as soon as we come out talking about an interconnector we have the government spruiking that interconnection is no good. They want to live on an island. They want to live totally disconnected from the rest of the country and the national energy market. How ridiculous!

The Heywood interconnector connects us to 650 megawatts of power through to Victoria, and we also have Murray Link, which is a groundbreaking link through to Victoria with two cables buried in the ground at 220 megawatts. We now have 870 megawatts of power on two interconnectors, but we have the Treasurer and the Premier indicating that we want to live on an island. I challenge them: are they going to shut down those interconnectors? Of course they will not. They know that we are absolutely reliant on that interconnection to drag in power from the Eastern States. Where is it generated from? Coal-powered turbines, and this state is still absolutely reliant on that generation because of the intermittency of the variable wind power, and that is exactly what happens.

It was only yesterday during question time that the Treasurer made some claims, and I will quote exactly what he said:

Interestingly, this is the first time South Australia has been a net exporter of energy and our power prices have been lower than those in Victoria.

In regard to his claim that power prices were lower than those of Victoria, it must have been for a very short space of time. Here we have the Treasurer, the energy minister who hates interconnection—he has made that clear earlier—yet here he is spruiking the fact we are a net exporter. You cannot have it both ways, Treasurer and Premier. You cannot have it both ways. It just does not work like that.

You cannot come in here and talk about the net exporting of electricity and in the other breath say, 'We hate interconnection.' It is a ridiculous statement to make. We are part of the national energy market, and as part of our policy we will look at connecting ourselves better to the grid in the Eastern States with $200 million worth of investment. We will not just look at it; we will get an interconnector installed through to New South Wales.

Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on this dirty diesel generation because of the failed Labor policies. This is the same government that wants us to live on an island, but when it suits them they are happy to talk about the benefits of exporting wind energy when it does blow to the Eastern States. It is absolutely outrageous, and the government should have a look at how the national energy market works and what is best for this state in regard to reliability and power pricing.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:35): I rise to make some comments on the installation of hybrid turbines as long-term backup power, and the interesting part of that is the long-term aspect. This contract is a lease for 13 months, so if that lease arrangement constitutes a long term, then I guess it fulfils the definition in the title.

Some of the issues around this include spending $110 million for backup generation, which can only come in to operation via the rules once there is a blackout. So we are spending literally a palletful of cash. I tried to do an analysis of how much $110 million actually is if you stack it up in $50 bills and put it on a pallet. At the end of the 13 months, those generators, which we are only leasing, technically can go back to the supplier. We are paying $110 million for that privilege, knowing that there is a strong likelihood they will never be used. It is a lot of money for a backup plan, and I would have liked to have seen a much longer term outlook.

There was a dissenting report, and I thought I would read through that. After hearing evidence on the above project, I want to congratulate Sam Crafter and other government presenters in the Public Works Committee. I thought they gave a thorough presentation on the constraints that were presented to them and the solution, but there are still concerns that we have. We have seen no evidence that all potential options to increase the capacity and reliability of power supply in South Australia, at the least possible cost to taxpayers, have been adequately assessed by the government. We do not believe that the government has been transparent with the public about the full potential costs of this plan.

For example, the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy told Estimates Committee A on 26 July (less than three weeks from this report) that once the procurement of additional generation capacity had been completed the government would provide further information on this component of the plan's cost. However, the Public Works Committee, which I was a member of, was subsequently told that the cost of the temporary generation and conversion to permanent generation facilities remain confidential, hence leaving us in the dark to a degree, although to be fair they did say that it will be within the $550 million envelope. For these reasons, two members of the committee were unable to endorse the committee's report.

On top of the $110 million, there will be maintenance costs. Every day, a couple of people will be rocking up to these generators that will not be turned on, unless there is a blackout, and basically turn them over, so there is an ongoing cost to the people of South Australia above that initial price. What I would like to see is some work done at the COAG level on the rules around the national energy market.

There were some suggestions. A Senate report showed there would be a reduction in the cost of electricity if Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia joined forces and counted themselves as one region, so actually working together. It is currently prohibited through the rules, but that could be changed very easily. In terms of the bid-in rules, if you understand the energy market, how these companies bid in to the system allows market manipulation. Particularly when they see that demand is going to be close to capacity, they put in at the highest level. It is not what they generate it at; it is what their profit margin dictates.

On days of high usage, they know that they can bid in pretty close to the legislated limit and that power will be dispatched at that time. Likewise, there are multiple bid offerings, where a bid can be put in, so that it looks to be dispatched, and then withdrawn at the very last minute and then put in at a higher price. There are rules around bidding in that could easily be changed at COAG to make it that the bid-in price is the price that is paid. Of course, the other issue is lowering the ceiling on the maximum amount to be charged.

There is no doubt we need more generating capacity in South Australia. I think the Treasurer hits that on the head very well, obviously being advised by some very knowledgeable people. This project does not add to generation capacity; therefore, it will not lead to lower electricity prices. It is a backup option only, and in my mind it is a very expensive option at $110 million for 13 months. It is something that I think the Liberal team needs to be aware of, and that is why we need transparency in this. There are some transition efficiencies in going from a backup lease arrangement into a more permanent generation capacity.

I do hope the Treasurer is forthcoming with that information because that may decide certain options going forward. There is no doubt we need greater generation capacity to drive down power prices. There are things that could be done at COAG. This is a backup option only, a bit like the desal plant, which again has ongoing costs because of maintenance and percentages that have to go through it for insurance reasons. This will be exactly the same: there are ongoing costs above the price indicated. With those words, I will conclude my debate.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:42): I wish to add a few words to this debate this morning on this particular issue. It is all part of the great sham and disgrace that is the current Labor government's handling of electricity over the last 16 years. It is arrant nonsense what the Premier and the energy minister/Treasurer have been running around trying to sell in the last few months with something under their arms.

As was indicated earlier on this side of the house, they let the Port Augusta power station fall over, with the subsequent loss of jobs and everything else that went with it. They could have quite easily kept it going long enough to make sure that we had something else in place, but, no, they did not choose to do that. Now that it has been to the Public Works Committee, this report has come to the parliament on the installation of hybrid turbines as long-term backup power for South Australia. It is a sham.

The issue for people out and about in South Australia—families and whoever else—is not where the power is produced: it is about how on earth they can pay their power bills that come in regularly. Just in the last few days, we have seen that people are not able to feed their families because they cannot pay their power bills. I can tell you that I know families that are using candles instead of having lights. It has gone back to the Dark Ages, literally.

Part of this ridiculous situation is that when we had the massive state power blackout last year, which only seems like the other day, only two areas in South Australia had power. One was the APY lands and the other area was Kangaroo Island—the APY lands because they had put in generators in the separate communities to provide power and Kangaroo Island because, in another life, I hassled the government at the time to do something about the continual breakdowns in power and power interruptions to the island and generators had been put in.

Fortunately, when we had the power blackout the South Australian Power Networks people were wise enough to see what was coming. They put all their staff on stand-by and got everything fuelled up so that when the power went out on the mainland and in Adelaide and most other places the power was switched on on the island and there was no interruption. That was good planning. What the Premier and the Treasurer are running around trying to sell is arrant nonsense. They stand absolutely condemned. They stand condemned on power prices.

This week, they are blaming the federal government for everything. It seems as though they do not have the guts to take responsibility for anything, and they continue to just play around the edges and try to persuade the people of South Australia that they have this wonderful plan for power. This is a backup power plant at Pelican Point—a backup power plant. I am pleased that a minority report was put in on this because there will be significant cost to the taxpayers of South Australia, and as the member for Mount Gambier correctly said, 'If 13 months is long term, then heaven help me!'

As was also discussed a while ago by, I think, the member for Hammond, you need only go back to former premier Rann with his rush for wind turbine power in South Australia. I have no problem with wind turbines and never have had. I actually have the first wind farm in South Australia in my electorate at Starfish Hill at Cape Jervis. I do not have any issue with it, but the wind does not always blow.

Port Augusta always worked. Provided you put coal in and heated the water, we still had power. They allowed that to fall over, and we have been pushing alternatives to that for some time, which I think are going to come to fruition. I am pretty disgusted and appalled that South Australia's electricity grid and generation capacity has fallen to the level it has due to the actions of this nearly 16-year-old Labor government. It is disgraceful.

As I said, they stand condemned, and I am sure that on polling day next year the people of South Australia will let them know in no uncertain terms what they think of the management of this state's economy, its finances and more particularly the impact that power breakdowns and more particularly power prices are having on their everyday lives and how they go about their business. It is a great tragedy for South Australia that we have got to where we have with this and I look forward to a day of vengeance on this government in March next year.

Motion carried.