National Electricity (South Australia) (Retailer Reliability Obligation) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (15:56): The National Electricity (South Australia) (Retailer Reliability Obligation) Amendment Bill 2019 seeks to implement the framework for the Retailer Reliability Obligation through amendments to the national electricity law, which is set out in the schedule to the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996.

The Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts supply and demand of the market over a 10-year outlook period and, as I mentioned previously, it refines its forecasts annually, which provides the market with the opportunity to address identified reliability gaps. New section 14F requires that each year the Australian Energy Market Operator undertakes forecasting on reliability gaps for future years.

A forecast reliability gap is linked to the National Electricity Market reliability standard and a reliability gap would occur where the forecast reliability in a particular region in a given financial year would result in the National Electricity Market reliability standard not being met to a material extent. The reliability standard was reviewed by the independent Reliability Panel in 2018, which is a specialist body within the Australian Energy Market Commission and includes large energy users, consumer groups from industry and also AEMO representatives.

To deliver a reliable supply, the level of supply needs to include a buffer so that the supply is greater than expected demand. This allows actual demand and supply to balance, even in the face of unexpected changes. It should also be noted that there are other aspects to system security, including the need to deliver ancillary services, such as frequency control and inertia for grid stability, which are also being progressed outside this bill.

The Reliability Panel recommended the current standard remain unchanged from its current level. In other words, the current standard requires that there will be sufficient generation and transmission interconnection into a region such that at least 99.98 per cent of expected annual demand for electricity in that region will be supplied.

As I mentioned previously, the AEMO forecasts supply and demand of the market over a 10-year outlook period. New section 14I provides for the triggering of the Retailer Reliability Obligation if AEMO continues to forecast a material reliability gap three years from the period in which the forecast is to occur. To trigger this Retailer Reliability Obligation, AEMO requests that a reliability instrument be made by the Australian Energy Regulator.

Importantly, the request to the Australian Energy Regulator will provide information about the forecast reliability gap, such as the region in which it is to occur, and also the gap period. The purpose of triggering this Retailer Reliability Obligation is to put liable entities on notice of that period for which they may be required to hold net contract positions that will be sufficient to meet their share of a one in two year peak demand forecast for the forecast reliability gap period.

The Australian Energy Market Operator request to the Australian Energy Regulator is therefore required to outline the relevant trading intervals during the forecast reliability gap period. Once that request by AEMO goes to the Australian Energy Regulator, it serves as a check and balance because AEMO, as the market operator, could potentially have a bias towards reliability over efficiency and affordability. The AER is there to ensure that the reliability guarantee is only triggered when absolutely necessary. That said, if the Australian Energy Regulator agrees with AEMO's request then, under section 14K, the Australian Energy Regulator may make a reliability instrument and the Retailer Reliability Obligation would be triggered.

One of the key objectives of such a reliability instrument is for the market to have the right signals to contract and invest to minimise the likelihood of the reliability gap occurring in the first place. That means that if the market adequately responds to these incentives, then any material reliability gaps should be resolved before the actual reliability obligation needs to be placed on those retailers; that is, the reliability obligation does not need to be triggered to act as the safety net particularly.

Even in circumstances where the reliability obligation was not triggered, the Energy Security Board expects that it would certainly incentivise market participants to engage in more long-term contracting up to an appropriate and sustainable level. At the same time, there is also a need to carefully consider the effects of market power and the liquidity of the contract market in the design of this obligation. A market liquidity obligation will be placed on large vertically integrated retailers to ensure that smaller retailers and liable entities will have access to contracts.

The impact analysis that was done on the modelling for the Retailer Reliability Obligation shows a number of things that bear out why we are going down this path. The forecast committed projects up to 2021 show that all the 7,775 megawatts of generation, or capacity into the markets, are from renewable sources. They also show that only 180 megawatts of that is in storage, in batteries. You can see that really only about 2½ per cent of this generation capacity is actually dispatchable compared with a great percentage that is intermittent, and that is really what this bill is about.

The bill introduces some form of recognition or capacity market to change the way generators will invest and to place a really clear value on dispatchability because, at the moment, that is what is missing. We can see the unintended consequences of not much storage being brought into the market. Certainly, that is the way it is going in many other jurisdictions internationally, and I mentioned before the US, the UK, Spain, France and Germany. For people to say that investors would not be used to these circumstances is a little bit misleading. The market internationally is maturing towards this, and this is a step that our government is taking to shore up reliable energy here in Australia.

Another impact of increasing contracting is that it will help to reduce the risk of reliability shortfalls. The longer term contracts will also help to reduce wholesale spot price volatility, and South Australia is certainly very aware of the effects of very high spot prices brought about by a lack of capacity. If we look at the closure of the Northern power station in Port Augusta and the effects that had previously, in the 2014-15 year the total value traded in the NEM in South Australia was around $450 million. In 2016-17, after it had been closed, the dollar value traded in South Australia shot right up to over $1,450 million. That is a massive jump, upwards of a billion dollars, really brought about by capacity scarcity.

We saw spot prices over $300 million, at that time jump up to $380 million, so you can see that, if the capacity is scarce, spot prices tend to go right up. That impacts wholesale prices, and they are passed on with devastating effect to South Australia, which we saw. This instrument, while not being the only means of trying to put downward pressure on prices, is certainly very important in trying to manage the whole incentivisation of new generation into the system.

That said, the contracts will provide retailers with more consistency in their electricity, in terms of their longer term contracts, and for the generators themselves it will provide a steadier stream of income. Another point is that the impact analysis of this Retailer Reliability Obligation modelling indicated that it will lead to more competitive bidding in the spot market, as generators will bid lower to increase their chances of being dispatched in order to cover their contracted capacity.

Getting back to the bill itself, once the Australian Energy Regulator has made a reliability instrument and the obligation is triggered, the reporting by liable entities associated with the reliability obligation will not be triggered unless a material reliability gap continues to be forecast one year out from when it is expected, so the market effectively has two years to respond to that gap in the forecast reliability. However, should the AER continue to forecast a material reliability gap one year from the period in which it is forecast to occur, the bill provides for AEMO to request another reliability instrument be made by the AER.

If the AER makes such a reliability instrument, liable entities must ensure that their net contract position for the trading period described in that instrument is no less than their share of a one in two year peak demand forecast for that reliability gap period. By doing that, generators will be encouraged to build dispatchable generation, including conventional generation, pumped hydro and battery and storage systems. By placing a value on this dispatchability, it is also intended to assist in keeping critical generation in operation until replacements are in place.

There is also a compliance regime. In terms of this, if the instrument is triggered during peak demand, the bill provides for civil penalty provisions in respect of the Retailer Reliability Obligation, with amounts not exceeding, for a natural person or a body corporate, $1 million in the first instance and $10 million for a breach that relates to a second or subsequent reliability gap.

In closing, I would like to thank the energy minister for his hard work in trying to bring down prices in South Australia. This is a long-term solution that will encourage investment in generation technology to ensure reliability and an appropriate level of dispatchable energy from on-demand sources. The reform itself is another way that this government is supporting a reliable energy system—by requiring companies to hold contracts or invest directly in dispatchable energy to meet demand. This will give households and business confidence that enough generation will be available to meet their electricity needs.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:08): I rise to support the National Electricity (South Australia) (Retailer Reliability Obligation) Amendment Bill 2019. At the beginning of my contribution, I want to talk about why we have ended up discussing reliability in this place. I believe that some poor policy decisions were made by the former Labor government, including the Rann Labor government, when we were flung headlong down a path into renewable energy without having a clear plan for transition. It was basically, 'Let's go with wind, solar, and let's blow up coal.' That is the very short version, but that is exactly what happened.

The issue is that we have all this energy being generated by renewables—which is great—but it does not blow all the time, or sometimes it blows too hard for the wind turbines, and it is not sunny all the time, so we need to find a better way. I go back to the Rann Labor government. They were so fixated on wind that they put some mini turbines on top of this very building that were not effective at all. There is an agricultural name for that, but I will not repeat it here. They were completely useless and would not be any good even as centrepieces in your lounge room.

Then we moved on to where this whole thing of embracing wind just took over, and over time we saw the power stations at Port Augusta shut down. That obviously affected the coalmines up at Leigh Creek and basically put to bed something like 650 jobs. My father-in-law, Richard Abernethy, used to work at the Port Augusta power station, and he would be turning in his grave.

It is this headlong rush into renewables. I note what the member for Giles said earlier that, yes, we should be playing our role and that we are a significant player. Well, Australia contributes less than 1 per cent of greenhouse gases. I believe we are also the number one coal exporter in the world; in fact, we have ships lining up on the east coast of this country to take coal out to those coal-fired generators—not just those running at the moment but also those being built as we speak in places like China. We have to be realistic.

I remember having a conversation here in this house and speaking to, I think, some year 11 or year 12 students. I was representing the Minister for Environment, and we had Mark Parnell from the Greens and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as well as Senator Tim Storer from the federal parliament here as a panel. I do not often agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell from the other place, but when he said that we needed global action I said, 'I admit that's what we do need.' We cannot be in the eye of the storm, basically destroying our economy for an ideal without taking everyone else with us. Unless everyone else goes with you, you are completely wasting your time and are destroying your economy.

Before anyone says that I do not support renewable power, I do. I have renewable power at the farm and I have it here at my Adelaide residence in the form of solar panels. My main impetus for putting on renewable power was the extreme cost of electricity, which came about because of Labor government policy. It is a huge cost to this state. There are people who are reluctant to switch on their lights or their heaters, or to switch on their coolers when it is hot as it has been during the summer recently.

It is outrageous. Supposedly, we live in a First World country but we are having some very Third World outcomes because of poor policy decisions that have been crippling a whole society. It does not matter what socio-economic base you come from, but it is those on the lower socio-economic levels who are getting belted the hardest. It is ridiculous, if you look at that in a global context, that we have people we trade with around the world who have a lot cheaper and a lot more reliable power.

The member for West Torrens, the former minister for energy, bemoaned the need for this bill. Well, governments he has represented prior to our taking office last March have caused the problem. They have absolutely caused this problem. We were sitting on that day, 28 September 2016. It was around 10 minutes to 4pm when South Australia went out. The whole state lost generation.

There is a whole range of discussion about why, when, how and what, but the simple version is there were about 23 pylons knocked down. You have to wonder about how well they were put in but, yes, they did suffer some terrible storm damage. I think it is just ridiculous that with those lines going down we lost the whole state. We should never have lost the whole state from those transmission lines going down.

I was told that, at one time, there was the equivalent—I will call them circuit-breakers—of five circuit-breakers that ran the state. We are basically down to one. What happened was everything just tripped out and we were left in the dark. Victoria was trying to do its job, sending power to us through the Murraylink and Heywood interconnectors, but that failed as well. We became the butt of jokes, not only in Australia but internationally. It just should not be.

What has happened since is that we have had to move to a regime of getting cheaper power. I commend the Minister for Energy, the member for Stuart, for the work he is doing not just on a broad scale but on that house scale by giving the opportunity for people to put batteries in homes—the 40,000 homes—and have batteries teamed up with solar. I believe that something close to 25 per cent of South Australian households have solar on their roof.

We also have the grand policy plan of the interconnector to New South Wales so that when we do have that overabundant energy mix from our end of the interconnector of solar, wind or both, we can be pumping that power directly into New South Wales with reach into Queensland and obviously into Victoria as well, while also utilising the Heywood interconnector into Victoria and the Murraylink interconnector that goes up through the Riverland. The beauty of it, and what people need to remember, is that with that interconnector into New South Wales, we can pick up that coal-fired power, that base load power, that we will and do need to keep our electricity supplies going into the future.

We have a lot of gas generation in South Australia. I also want to note that it is interesting that before we were elected, in the discussion around the interconnector into New South Wales the Labor minister (member for West Torrens) and the Labor Party were all quite happy to say, 'Let's have an interconnector. That's a great grand policy plan.' As soon as we were elected, it fell over and they said, 'No, we don't want an interconnector.' That was another fly-by-night idea. Today, we see a softening of that. We have the member for Giles, who suddenly seems to be the energy spokesperson over there, saying he supports the interconnector in principle.

So what do they support? Do they support the interconnector or not? I will tell you what, even the Labor opposition members in this house like the fact that they can have their lights on and their heaters going or their coolers going, and the simple fact is that interconnector will save many millions of dollars over time for the residents of South Australia.

It is a necessary infrastructure build that needs to happen and I fully back the policy we took to the people and are implementing. It will be interesting, because I think that by the time the interconnector will be built we might not just have in-principle support from the opposition but that it will fully support it. What we need to understand is that we cannot just fly headlong—whether or not you believe in climate change—into a policy like complete renewable when you need base load power.

The simple fact is that base load essentially is coal or gas. More gas has come online in recent times, but we see that there is still the potential to unlock that power out of that coal in the seams below Leigh Creek. We see that people like the Hon. Mark Parnell are dead against that, but that could supply energy well into the future and supply a much-needed workforce in an area that obviously has the town of Leigh Creek. Leigh Creek is a beautiful little town. It is so underutilised—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: —absolutely—since we saw that terrible decision 'Oh, no, we'll just get out of base load, we'll get out of coal and we'll destroy those jobs,' forgetting completely that in the global market Australia earns at least $10 billion from coal exports. It is just crazy thinking. I certainly urge the production and the research into getting that gas extraction at Leigh Creek if at all possible because it is a great part of the world and the infrastructure is there and the town and the facilities are there. It is a fantastic place, and I do not get there afternoon enough, unlike the member for Stuart.

As a result of poor policy decisions made by previous governments, we get to the situation where now we have to put in a Retailer Reliability Obligation. Let's not forget the diesel emergency generation that 'diesel Tom', the member for West Torrens, put in place, because their climate policy was not working, and guess what? You have to go to dirty diesel to back it up and, yes, we have had to fire them up, but one thing that has not happened under the Marshall Liberal government is that the lights have not gone off. That is the stark difference between us managing not just the power in this state but managing the whole state.

People are so happy not just because we are running the electricity supplies in this state but because we are here running the state, as the place was going backwards. I was down at Lot Fourteen just yesterday and the Premier was talking to us about the investment coming into the state since we were elected because people can see hope. People in huge companies like BHP, OZ Minerals and others can just see that light that people who understand business are here and that we are keen to make sure that it works and to work alongside them.

In regard to the retailer reliability obligations, contracts are in place to provide retailers with a more consistent price for electricity, which in turn allows them to write longer term contracts with consumers, and for generators contracts provide a steadier stream of income. This firm revenue enables them to obtain financing for new investment. A whole range of ideas has been discussed about what can happen with new investment in the field, such as pumped hydro.

I know that Hillgrove, which operates the mine at Kanmantoo, Callington, is talking about the possibility of putting in pumped hydro there. Yes, it would be a very expensive proposal if it goes ahead, and there are other proposals like this right around the state. We see a lot more solar farms going in. We have one at Tailem Bend, which I believe is fired up. We have had some battery storage put in place—the so-called 'big battery' that would power the state for about four minutes. As I said, there are more solar farms going in all the time. However, it is not base load power and we still need that base energy generation.

I have always been intrigued with Snowy Hydro. We have heard the discussion about Snowy 2.0, and I sincerely hope they get that project through to completion. The first Snowy project was fantastic. I have visited there a couple of times, once with work. A very smart marketing tool is used with hydro: they wait until the opportunity to generate yields the maximum price. Back when I visited I think it was $10,000 a megawatt hour, but I think that the highest you can go for now is about $14,000 a megawatt hour, so it is really a market mechanism.

When I was young, I used to think that with Snowy Hydro they would just be spilling water and generating power, but that is not how it works. They wait for that market opportunity. There is either a severe cold snap or a hot period, a heatwave, and the market signals, 'We need to spill the water.' They can fire up the turbines within about 90 seconds at Tumut in the Snowy Mountains. Initially, they probably did think, 'Yes, we will just spill water and generate power all the time.' It can almost completely manipulate when they operate to give that maximum benefit as a power generator, and it is a great business model.

The Retailer Reliability Obligation is designed to incentivise retailers and other market customers (liable entities) to support the reliability of the National Electricity Market through their contracting and investment strategies. Liable entities are expected to contract in a variety of ways to meet their reliability obligation. If the market operator assesses that there is a material reliability gap, it may request that the Australian Energy Regulator make a reliability instrument.

Should the regulator make a reliability instrument, it will trigger an obligation on energy retailers to contract with generation, storage or demand response so that there are sufficient contracts in place to meet their share of a one in two year peak demand should it occur during the forecast reliability gap period. Based on current forecasts by the Australian Energy Market Operator, South Australia's one in two year peak demand is approximately 2,900 megawatts. That is a significant amount of power. We reflect on what happened when Port Augusta went offline. That was 520 megawatts of generation of total base load that disappeared just like that, burning away in the background, making sure that power was being supplied to the good constituents of South Australia.

To manage the transition to the new mechanism, local South Australian amendments to the obligation will allow the South Australian minister to make a reliability instrument three years out and 15 months out in transitional years if it appears on reasonable grounds that there is a real risk that electricity supply to all or part of South Australia may be disrupted to a significant degree on one or more occasions during a period. There has been significant consultation regarding this bill. I fully commend the legislation. I wonder whether we would be here today debating this bill if we still had generation in Port Augusta from that Leigh Creek coal.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:29): I rise to commend the bill to the house. This is an important step in amending our National Electricity Law further to enhance reliability and put downward pressure on prices for consumers nationwide. It provides me with an opportunity to reflect on the contribution of the member for West Torrens earlier, as well as on the inspired remarks of the member for Giles earlier.

In this area, we are really embarking on a restoration of adherence to the importance of a National Electricity Market. It is that fundamental. For the 16 years prior to 17 March last year, we had a government in this state whose record was wholly and entirely abominable. Labor's record was prices up and reliability down with the result that, in the course of the period of time from 2015 until the state had the travails it did commencing on 28 September 2016 and then the further extended blackouts that occurred in late 2017, we saw the previous government go from adherence to the National Electricity Market, to COAG processes and to the SA-hosted legislative reform process, to an entirely opportunistic about face and a go-it-alone theme.

In listening to the contribution of the member for West Torrens earlier today, I was heartened to hear that there has been another about face. It seems as though the National Electricity Market is back in vogue as far as the member for West Torrens is concerned. The bottom line is that energy—its management, pricing and reliability—has been so abominably managed by the previous Labor government in this state that it is core and necessary business for this new government to go about repairing the damage.

What is our record in the early days of the Marshall government under the excellent stewardship of the Minister for Energy? We know that pricing is now under control and on track to steadily reduce. We know—the evidence shows us—that reliability is up already as we restore a rational approach to the grid. We have just been through a summer without significant major widespread blackouts, which we came to regard as de rigeur under the previous government: there would be a major blackout every so often.

I see members opposite shaking their heads and saying, 'Well, that's a gloss,' and words to that effect. It is not so long ago that it was regarded as necessary and prudent practice for businesses in my electorate in the Hills—small businesses and businesses of various sizes conducting all sorts of different business—to purchase very expensive independent power sources in anticipation of what in all likelihood was going to be several days in a row of power blackout, particularly through the summer months. It is well to remind ourselves that this is the backdrop against which these reforms are now brought to the house.

In a debate on a bill of this kind, one might think that the member for West Torrens, of all people, might just sit quietly back in his room and let the whole thing go on quickly and hope that nobody notices that he is still in the building, but he came along here and he said that the opposition would support the bill's speedy passage and that 'we hope it all gets through the house'. Perhaps what he meant was, 'We hope someone comes along, and we hope it gets passed pretty quickly because we don't want a spotlight shone on our recent record.' It is indeed a very sorry record, and we can all learn the lessons. However, one thing ought to be clear in this process, and there is no better time than now to focus on it: this state is best served by having a coherent and thoroughgoing connection to the National Energy Market—and long may that prevail.

After the frolics from the member for West Torrens and to those in the dying days of the previous government with notions of telling COAG, 'We're going to restore sovereignty to South Australia, we're going to go it alone, we're going to dis-attach ourselves,' I say that never again should those words pass the lips of those responsible for making decisions in the energy space in this state. I note, because these things are matters of record, what the member for West Torrens said back in February 2017. Let's remember that February 2017 comes off the back of 28 September 2016, and that is the day the whole state was blacked out, and we all remember that very well.

It was not only on the back of that. Just after Christmas, in the heat of summer, having a whole lot of extended further blackouts leading to the focus on independent energy production, as we approached a year out to the election we had this this politically opportunistic about face from the then energy minister, the member for West Torrens. He was quoted as saying, on 27 February 2017, that he was going to participate in a phone hook-up with COAG at lunchtime that day and he was going to tell them that he would be using the failures in South Australia as a reason to retake control of the power network to ensure that it would not happen again. He was going to tell COAG that South Australia was going to go it alone.

There was no coherent science behind any of that. There was no coherent economics behind any of that. It was pure politics. What did we see further in that context? We saw the government announcing a half a billion dollar emergency energy plan. We saw the government going ahead to spend well over $100 million on what the previous premier, now left this place, described at the time as 'hybrid generators', if I recall correctly. I think that was with a view to making them sound a bit cleaner and greener than the sort of impression one might have been left with if he had described them as diesel generators.

They are hybrid for the reason that they are capable of running on gas. They are wonderful generators, capable of producing a huge amount of power. They went ahead and entered into a lease of these generators, and that was supposed to signal to South Australians that, as part of this sovereignty push, we were going to have our own emergency backup power. However, it gets even better than that.

Having secured access to these power generators, on the eve of the election the former premier and the member for West Torrens, the dynamic duo, thought it might be advantageous politically (or at least I can surmise that that must have been their thinking) to go ahead and accelerate the purchase provisions, notwithstanding there being no obligation to do so, and to double-down and spend a whole lot more money to acquire these assets in circumstances where the assets were not to be used—in fact, they were excluded from use—in the ordinary energy market. They were to be quarantined for that special occasion when they were permitted to be used.

We had about faces in relation to the national energy market, we had an irrational approach to the economics of acquiring further generation and then we had a completely irrational approach to the application of the assets that were required. It is not just me saying that, because, as promised, the new government sought to have some detailed inquiry into the process that was followed by the former government. As all members are well aware, the report of the special investigator was laid on the table in this house in October last year.

I take every opportunity to commend the report of the special investigator to honourable members. It spells out that there was a lack of thoroughgoing, if any, analysis around the need to acquire and indeed accelerate the purchase of these assets and that there was no explanation for the very large sum of money—in excess of $600 million—that was committed. One is left to think that the former government, and the member for West Torrens in particular, was willing to make decisions based on politics rather than in the best interests of South Australians when making decisions relevant to securing reliable energy supply in this state and at the best available price.

It does not sit well in the mouth of the member for West Torrens to query whether or not these reforms are likely to succeed and the degree to which they may succeed. Indeed, it would be far more appropriate if the member for West Torrens were simply, on matters of this kind, to hop up very briefly, indicate his contrition, apologise and then get out of the way so that we can get back to managing the National Electricity Market in the best and most efficient way that we possibly can.

At the outset, I referred to the additional remarks in this debate on the other side of the house from the member for Giles. I listened very carefully to his contribution as well. I welcome the member for Giles' observation. He put it quite clearly. I think he has come to the conclusion, a concession, after what has been a considerable amount of back and forth, at least from his point of view, that an interconnector is a good thing after all. I welcome that because that is a signal that at least some of the more enlightened members opposite, including the member for Giles, have come to that realisation.

It is another part of what the previous government did not seem to get. We had an adherence to 'interconnectors are good' for a little while. We then had the opposite view for a little while. Meanwhile, prices were going up, reliability was going down and the previous government's reputation in relation to stewardship of the electricity market in this state was in tatters.

The member for Giles made a number of observations around the importance of renewable energy. That is, again, something that we on this side of the house wholeheartedly agree with. A whole lot of scratching of heads is happening on the other side of the house because it seems as though they had a period in which there was a mantra-like ideological adherence to renewables and so on but, without the rational interconnectedness, the market forces allowed to play their part. As a result, they had this signalling to a public, this rush off in a direction based on ideology, and that has led to the unfortunate situation that we have had under the previous government.

All that is in the past. We on this side of the house embrace the energy future. We embrace the great capacity of this state to generate energy and to deliver that energy into a national energy market with confidence and abundance. That is very much what we ought to be doing in this state, not cutting ourselves off, not going it alone, not claiming back our energy sovereignty and beating our energy chests. We should be doing precisely what we are doing, and that is participating in and, indeed, leading these important reforms.

Whether it is in relation to the reform of the National Electricity Law, whether it is about getting to grips with the capital investments that have been made in the whole range of different sources of energy production in the state or whether it is about ensuring that our energy customers—that is, all of us in this state—have access to the very cheapest and most reliable power we possibly can. That is what we are all about. We will not seek to hide behind ideology. We will not seek to make up a political agenda to hide failure. We will look to ensure that we have a robust and nationally connected market so that South Australia can get back to leading the way and we can put the dim and literally dark days under the previous government long behind us.

With those brief words, and welcoming as I do the contribution and the indication from the member for West Torrens and the member for Giles that this bill will be supported through both houses of the parliament, I look forward to its speedy passage. With a further advert to the good work of the special investigator and an encouragement to all of us to look to the merits and the facts in all things, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (16:49): I, too, rise to make a contribution. I rise with a fair amount of concern, not only for South Australian businesses and their prosperity but for what we are seeing around the impact of power, particularly in South Australia.

At the COAG Energy Council meeting on Wednesday the 19^th, ministers agreed to amendments to the National Energy Retail Law to create a Retailer Reliability Obligation. I am sure that many people on this side made a contribution with concerns about what a previous government did. I am not going to try to look over my shoulder. What I am going to do is to just paint a picture of what bad government policy has meant to business here in South Australia, what the lack of reliability has meant and what the ongoing implications of a government's ideology have meant not only to power prices but to the confidence of the business sector to come into South Australia, whether it is to set up a new business, expand an existing business or whether it is just about the confidence of the conversation around doing business in South Australia.

There are a number of obligations that should increase in contracting and reducing the risk of price volatility from generator retirements without adequate replacement investment. To manage the transition of new mechanism, South Australian-specific amendments to the obligation will allow the South Australian minister to make a reliability instrument three years out and 15 months out from a transitional year, if it appears on reasonable grounds that there is a real risk that supply might be disrupted to a significant degree during that period.

Obviously, we now have a competent minister, who has done his time in opposition. He is very diligent and meticulous with detail. He is meticulous with the transparency that he wants to give the sector because, having been a businessperson in a previous life, he understands the vagaries of trying to do business and what uncertainty means, and power is no exception. He has been working tirelessly on ways to reduce the cost of energy in this state.

We all agree that renewable energy is an important part of our energy mix now and into the future. As many have said, it is about the transition. It is about how a lot of businesses were unaware and what it has done to them. I know that in my electorate there have been a number of businesses that have made very large investments, but they have made them in New South Wales and Victoria because they lost confidence in South Australia's ability to produce not only power but reliable power at an affordable cost.

The high electricity cost that we had previously has had a huge impact, particularly on regional South Australia. I will touch a little bit more on the impact of the increasing cost not only on reliability but on the losses in transmission to some regional centres and, by and large, what it has meant to South Australia, particularly with those transmission lines coming into the state and what it has meant to businesses. There are solutions. A number of business leaders are in discussions with the government, looking at solutions to how we can negate some of the issues, particularly around transmission losses.

Irrigators cannot pick and choose when they water. Nowadays, if we look at what water efficiency means, we have to water plants when the plants need it. We cannot go back to the old days of irrigating at night. We cannot go back to the days of broad spectrum irrigation. We now use precision irrigation: we water a root zone and we have to water that root zone when it is screaming out for water. Plants are thirsty normally in the heat of the middle of the day. It is pretty self-explanatory. It is just like us. We are a working moving organism. When we are thirsty, we drink. The plant cannot be told, 'Just hang on. When the hot weather finishes tonight, we will give you a drink, if you're lucky.' That cannot happen.

What we are seeing now is that water efficiency is driving up the price of power because we are now irrigating plants in the heat of the day. We are irrigating plants during the day and we let them rest at night, just as we rest at night. What we are seeing is that we cannot wait for those price spikes to go away. As I said, waiting for the sun to go down is now not an option. Once, if we wanted to we could water on the weekends and get cheap power, but that is also not an option now. I would like to touch on an organisation I chaired that was instrumental in bringing weekend tariffs to irrigators and primary producers in South Australia a number of years ago.

South Australian Murray Irrigators negotiated with the power supplier back then, ETSA, to implement weekend tariffs. That was absolutely groundbreaking, a game changer, when it came to finding some efficiencies. The majority of irrigators nowadays are irrigating a lot on high country, so in a lot of instances they are lifting water about 30 metres. That comes at a cost not only of power but also of having to put in significant pumping capacity to make sure the best ground can be planted, the irrigation put on the best ground, so that we get the best result, so that we grow the best food, so that we can export and create a vibrant economy as well as being price competitive on a global stage.

I also want to talk about what I have seen in a very short period of time with irrigation along the River Murray. The edge of the River Murray is now littered, although littered is probably not the right way to describe it: there is a large amount of alternative power generation on the river. If I go anywhere along the river now, I can hear diesel generators or see a lot of PV panel farms that are there not only to supply power. A lot of the pumps require large-scale PV farms.

I went up and visited a local almond grower who has just bought himself a big Cat diesel generator. He generates about one megawatt of power from that generator, and he needs that to water his farm. He grows almonds, but he needs to water the almonds when the almonds need water. If he is going to be a successful primary producer, he cannot be held to when he can use power. He cannot be held to when his app or phone lights up and tells him that power has just hit $1,399 per kilowatt hour. He has to make a decision: does he turn off the pumps or does he continue to pump at great cost?

That particular grower has made a significant investment, but right along the river's edge we are seeing irrigators putting in small pumps as ancillary pumps just to get by. It is not ideal, but it is a measure that has been implemented through sheer desperation. We are seeing the increase in costs to a lot of these pumpers, a lot of wineries by and large but also our irrigation trusts.

As I have said, they are looking at ways to solve a problem coming our way, and that is the continual increase in the cost of transmission losses through the transmission lines. If we look at the Central Irrigation Trust, the largest irrigation business in South Australia apart from SA Water, of course, their increase in transmission loss costs was $250,000. That is significant, and where does that money come from? It comes out of the growers' pockets because that cost is then passed on.

Kingston Estate Wines, a family-owned winery in the Riverland, crushes a significant amount of fruit—120,000 tonnes or thereabouts this year, probably more with the acquisition of more private vineyards. They have seen an increase of up to $380,000 in transmission losses. That is a family-owned vineyard and winery. The Wine Group at Loxton has had an increase of $190,000 and the Renmark Irrigation Trust has had an increase of $50,000. Again, all these increased costs are put back onto growers. If we are going to be globally competitive in the wine sector, we cannot just increase the price of wine. We have to absorb it somewhere and, by and large, it comes back to a reduced return to growers for their fruit. That is a real concern.

We have seen recently that there are a number of initiatives that this government has put in place. The current energy and mining minister's initiative to put an interconnection from New South Wales into South Australia makes sense and it puts South Australia into a ring of supply. We will not be at the end of the line, as we currently are. The $200 million interconnection fund to improve connectivity with the National Electricity Market and the $100 million household battery program are great initiatives that give certainty to the marketplace and show that we have a government that actually understands the transition from what was to what we are now about to use.

We have a number of other initiatives that are going out there to help. Hundreds of South Australians are now seeking more affordable, reliable power. So far, we have seen the subsidy through the Home Battery Scheme, where 40,000 South Australians have the opportunity to access up to $6,000 to help them. Ultimately, the scheme will benefit all South Australians as more batteries are added to reduce the total demand.

Recently, I announced $400,000 out of the Regional Growth Fund to the apple and pear growers in the Adelaide Hills for them to find efficiencies in their pumping so that they can look at ways of reducing the cost. It is about helping them become competitive, it is about helping them remain in the game and it is also reducing those energy costs. The project includes upgrades to 42 existing water pumping systems and the installation of solar technology across 22 properties. That represents investment into power generation that would have once been into expanding farms or putting in new varieties the world is calling out for. While these farmers are dealing with what they were dealt by the previous government's ideology of power generation, that transition really hurt them dearly.

A French renewable energy company, Akuo Energy, has also invested $12 million into the Riverland. It has signed a long-term lease to build, own and operate a 4.98 megawatt renewable energy site in partnership with the Renmark Paringa Council. It will power about 2,000 homes with some 15,000 solar panels.

These are some of the initiatives we are seeing happen. We are seeing initiatives that are supporting business, but I think it is more important to note that, after what we were dealt by the previous government's ideology, people are now realising that this government cares, that this government is giving them opportunity to make savings with their power bills and that this government is making decisions that will put more reliability into their power supply. That is showing us that businesses have seen too much investment into the alternative power supply, rather than dealing with a reliable grid—a grid that is affordable.

It is through sheer frustration that I make this contribution. As a previous irrigator, having to have power on stand-by and having to have power at exorbitant costs, I know that your phone lighting up with an app service that tells you that power has just hit that $13,999 is a rude awakening. Do you turn your pump off and risk the viability of crops, or do you keep on pumping and pump away the profit you hoped to be making out of a very viable crop?

So I have made a contribution, and I think the current minister is doing an outstanding job to alleviate the concerns not only for investment in this state but for dealing with the sandwich that the majority of high power users have had to deal with over a long period of time. I look forward to the current government's policies coming online, making sure that we have a high level of confidence and that reduce the cost of power and increase the reliability.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:04): I rise to speak on the National Electricity (South Australia) (Retailer Reliability Obligation) Amendment Bill 2019. It has taken me a lot to come to speak on this bill. I have just spent the last half an hour reading one of the most gruesome coronial reports I have ever read, and I will be talking about that on another day in this house.

However, I was motivated to interrupt myself in relation to that matter, difficult as it was, to speak on this bill because I do not think there was any question in our new Premier's mind that if we had the opportunity in March last year to form government what the priorities would be. So single focused was he in relation to some matters that he made sure that there would be an energy minister with no other responsibility other than to ensure that we secured affordable and reliable power. That is how important it was to him that we would address that.

There were some very pressing issues, including child protection, about which there had been a shameful history of failure under the previous government. But in a positive sense, in terms of a key ingredient to resurrect some economic future for our state power was one of those important ingredients. For most of our primary industry, power and water and people are critical to the provision of those jobs and not just a future for our children but economic sustainability of our own economy here. He understood that very well, so he appointed the current minister to exclusively have this responsibility. I just want to say that not only has he brought this bill to the parliament but also he has been completely and utterly dedicated to ensuring that we have a restoration of reliable power in this state, and I commend him for that.

Only some weeks ago, South Australia had a blisteringly, I dare say, hellishly, hot day. It was over 40°. The Premier had rather inconveniently gone overseas, and I was left with the responsibility ensuring that we kept everything in order. There were no floods, and there were no serious bushfires. There was a fire on the day, but there was no serious consequence. We did not have any cyber attacks, and we did not have any major problems, but I have to say that the Minister for Energy, minute by minute, was monitoring the supply and availability of power to deal with that very hot day.

I just place on record my admiration for his staying focused and completely disciplined on that task. I was sweating a lot, but he just stayed completely calm and got us through that difficult day. Following on from the public's attention to this, there was a critical period of time when I think there was a desire to have just enough power to meet demand, and that was achieved. We did not want too much more wind. We did not really want any wind because of the risk of bushfire, but the Minister for Energy was saying to me, 'Actually, we need a bit of wind.' I said, 'Well, hang on a minute. We might need to balance this so that we don't have a problem if we do have a major fire.'

These are the sorts of situations that the minister was able to steer through and keep a steady lever on ensuring the state had its continued secure supply. Most of us who are able bodied can endure a heat event, but the fact is that we need to take into account that there are many people in our community who, without power and without cooling, whether it is because they are frail aged, vulnerable or in disabled circumstances or a young infant, can be in a desperate situation if they do not have power.

My understanding is that the bill here, in having a Retailer Reliability Obligation, is designed to incentivise retailers and other market customers to support the reliability of the National Electricity Market through building on their contracting and investment strategies that underwrite investment in dispatchable capacity by encouraging earlier and longer term contracting. That is the gist of it, and it is very important. The detail has been outlined by other speakers.

I would just like to say that, whilst we had an era of comprehensive failure under the previous government on the provision of reliable and affordable power, and we continued to have the burden on the general community as a cost of living unfairly imposed on South Australians by incompetent ministers, it is very pleasing to see a new era come in, and there are other important initiatives that are being presented by the government.

I want to go back to circa 2002 when there was a change of government and I think the Hon. Patrick Conlon became the minister for energy—if not at that time, it might have been later. For a period, he had a stint as transport minister, but that is a period we would rather forget. I remind members that the previous Rann government adopted a policy to do two things. One was to go into a national system; that is, there was going to have to be a call on significant amounts of power in the states, in this part of the country—New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia in particular—and we needed to think about how we were going to accommodate a national scheme.

I can fully admit to the house that I think I was the only person in South Australia who voted against going into the national scheme. I felt that there were significant risks to South Australia and I was not prepared to support them. They were in my wild younger days of being prepared to cross the floor. In any event, I make the point that, at the time, my concern was that the then state Labor government would abandon any real attempt to have lower power prices, would then blame the national scheme and say, 'It's their problem now.' That is about what happened; nevertheless, it still had to be resolved.

One good thing that Mr Conlon did was to announce on behalf of his government that it was important to have an interconnector, that if we were in a national scheme, we should have an interconnector. He also promised a desalination plant on the West Coast because they were in desperate need of water, but that promise came and went, but in relation to the interconnector, he was right: if we were going to go into a national scheme, we had to be connected so that we could have the benefit of this scheme.

Whilst I was sceptical about their abandonment of responsibility in providing for South Australians in this space, I nevertheless agreed that an interconnector was very important and year after year, budget after budget, we would look in there to see where this mysterious interconnector was going to start, or at least the planning for it, and that it was going to happen.

Fast-forward to 2019 and we do not have one, but we do have a government that is committed to the very essence of the fundamentals of underpinning reliable power, namely, having an interconnector with New South Wales. Again, I am very pleased that the Minister for Energy is responsibly advancing this project, and that it is progressing. No doubt, he will give us further updates as to the important advancement of that.

The reliability issue is pretty important to the extent that we also need to consider what access we have to connection in other parts of this state. Most of you know that I grew up on Kangaroo Island. Until I was about 12, we did not have mains power. My job was to turn the generator on daily and turn it off at about midnight, or let it just run out of fuel—that was the other option. If you let it splutter away for a while, it would eventually run out, and mum would be halfway through the ironing or something. In any event, that is what would happen.

Just last weekend I was home on the island and stayed with my cousin, who does not have mains power. He has a long drop, too, so it was an interesting experience to revisit. Nevertheless, we got through the night. He would go off to put his generator on, and so on. It just reminds us how lucky we are to have a system where we can go into a room and turn on a light and be able to have access to power in our ordinary living, but we should remember the critical needs of somebody conducting surgery on a little baby in a hospital or making provision for irrigation that needs to be powered, as the Minister for Primary Industries has just outlined to us. In every way, we rely on regular power and its interruption can be very costly in money and in lives.

I will give an example of the human harm that arises out of a blackout like we had under the previous government. There had been a major failing at the Flinders Medical Centre, and couples had their hope of a family extinguished when their frozen embryos started to defrost. The embryos were lost as a direct consequence of the interruption to power and the failure to bring online the diesel backup generators. Apparently, there was no fuel in them or something. In any event, little human embryos were lost and families' hopes of having children were lost. There was a significant cost to the community through taxpayer-funded claims that needed to be settled to resolve these things. There are real and present costs and consequences to these things, so I think that it is terribly important that we recognise the significance of reliability and ensure that we maintain it.

Another thing I learned is that the replacement for the cable from South Australia to Kangaroo Island that currently provides mains power to Kangaroo Island is underway. It is due to be replaced after a 65-year arrangement. I am not sure whether they have actually started rolling them off the back of the ship yet, but it is underway. I very much thank the Minister for Energy for whatever role he has to ensure that happens. I know that one of our operators does undertake that. I think it is SA Power Networks that actually undertake that role. I look forward to the day when that is connected up and we have other opportunities for renewable and sustainable energy being developed on Kangaroo Island.

I would be happy to put windmills all down the coast, but these are things that have to be worked through to ensure that we are able to be a positive contributor to the energy production market down the track. I look forward to that day. I think that would be a great opportunity. However, in the meantime we need to have some backups. The experience we have had of mismanagement by governments in the past has meant that we have had to ensure that we all go out and buy generators and make sure that we have some capacity to survive, especially if one is living in a regional community.

On a positive note, I will say that we pulled out the generator when my nieces and nephews were home recently. We taught them what to do in the event of a fire approaching, and they seemed at least to have some understanding of what to do. In any event, it is terribly important that we recognise the significance of the reliability of energy, and our obligation in this will be assisted by the passage of this bill.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:17): I thank all people who have contributed to this debate. Everybody has put in a very clearly thought-out contribution. I appreciate that enormously. I appreciate some of the very generous comments that have been made, some of them perhaps slightly too generous. Nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that people have spoken and contributed very well on this bill.

When I said 'clearly thought-out contribution', I include the member for West Torrens in that. He thought out his contribution very clearly, very carefully and very deliberately—and very mischievously as well. He is a very smart bloke. There is no doubt about it. He knows his business, and his business is politics. We know that, and that is okay. That is part of what all of us do to a smaller or larger degree, and I do not complain about that whatsoever.

However, the member for West Torrens comes in here as the former energy minister and says time and time again that he does not think that this or that is a very good idea but that he might be wrong and that he hopes he is wrong. For just about every aspect of the bill that he could come up with, he found a way to make it seem bad but then said that he might be wrong and he hopes that he is wrong.

There were other very well thought-out contributions, and probably more constructive as well. I found the member for Heysen's contribution entertaining. He showed a side of himself that we have all known is there, but he has not let it flow in this chamber quite as well as he did today. I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by the focus, effort and diligence of our members of parliament. You would have heard, Mr Speaker, some very well thought-out contributions. I will not single out those individuals because it was just about everybody, to be quite blunt. They were trying to get to the bottom of these issues. What does it mean for our state? What does it mean for energy? What does it mean for consumers, prices and reliability? If the previous government had made that much effort to deliver what was best for consumers rather than what was best for politics, our state would be in a much better place.

As Minister for Energy, I take this responsibility incredibly seriously. I want to note and acknowledge the contribution of the member for West Torrens in regard to the opposition's support in this place and in the other place for anything that comes from our government to this parliament that has COAG's backing. As he said, I did exactly that when I was the shadow minister. I felt comfortable to put whatever I wanted on the record, but as the opposition at the time we never impeded the passage of COAG legislation. I thank the current shadow minister for returning that courtesy and that practicality. I think that it is important, and I acknowledge his contribution.

Another contribution I would like to pick up on is that of the member for Giles, my friend and neighbour. As everybody knows, I am a Port Augusta-based MP and he is a Whyalla-based MP. It was terrific to have such a ringing, sound and genuine endorsement of the Marshall Liberal government's energy policy from the member for Giles. It was no accident that he spoke the way he did. I know him well. We work very closely in the Upper Spencer Gulf, to the best of our ability, for our constituents.

We are members of different political parties, one in government and one in opposition, and we do our very best to confine our conflict, if you like, to within parliament and, occasionally, within the media; however, I have to say that for the member for Giles and myself it is very rare. Face to face and in the electorate, we work as collaboratively as we possibly can on behalf of our constituents. It was lovely to have his endorsement of our energy policy in this chamber. I really do appreciate that. As I said, he was not going to speak but he could not help himself.

Mr Teague: He was inspired.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The member for Heysen said he was inspired; thank you, member for Heysen. During the contribution of the Deputy Premier, I was also fortunate enough to receive a very positive reminder from the member for Colton. He gave me a copy of an old election flyer from the 2002 election, so it would have been just before the election. We all know that the Labor Party took to that election a commitment to build an interconnector between South Australia and New South Wales. We all know that they did not do it, but what I did not know about is a flyer, which I will read from my phone—and I will not use this as a prop in any way. This is from the then leader of the opposition, Mike Rann, who, as we know, went on to become premier. It states:

We will fix our electricity system and an interconnector to NSW will be built to bring in cheaper power.

I should read the section at the bottom. It is signed by Mike Rann, and states:

Keep this card as a check that I keep my pledges.

I will not go into the detail of that. I thought it interesting, in fairness to the former premier, that his pledge be noted as well.

I forget which one of my colleagues talked about the interconnector. We, too, took that to the last election as an election commitment from opposition. We are doing everything we possibly can to deliver that election commitment as soon as possible. We are also working through our household battery scheme delivery, our grid-scale storage fund, our demand response trials and many, many things.

In fairness, some of those things we are working on—not the things I have just mentioned—were started by the previous Labor government. Our whole team has a very strong ethos, which says that whatever good things the previous government was doing we will do our best to retain and run on with our new policies and our new implementation program. We are doing that quite openly and straightforwardly, and that is what we want to do for the benefit of the people of South Australia.

One of those things, of course, is the interconnector. The Labor Party said they would do it and they did not. We said that we would do it and we will. We will do that in partnership with industry. It is not obviously going to be built by the state government in South Australia and in New South Wales. We will do that in partnership with the industry and the regulators. We acknowledge the enormous contribution that other parties make in regard to the delivery of our election policies.

Another thing that we will do is work responsibly with COAG, with Liberal and Labor governments from other states and with the current federal Liberal government. After the election—of course, I hope it is a Liberal government again—regardless of the outcome of the federal election, we will work as constructively as possible with whichever political party is elected to government in Canberra.

This Retailer Reliability Obligation has come to us from COAG. It is roughly half of what the NEG was going to be. The Retailer Reliability Obligation makes up a big part of the NEG and then the omissions component makes up the other half of the NEG. I think it is beholden on us all to get this through, and that is what we are all doing, regardless of which political party we are in.

I appreciate the comments of the member for West Torrens, who said that they will not slow it down and that they will not amend it in the upper house either, in which case we know that with the support of the government and the opposition it will get through. We need to implement these schemes. We need to show, at the very least, that what COAG agrees to we can implement in South Australia. We can do that not only for the benefit of South Australia but for the benefit of the nation, and, at the very least, the National Electricity Market members of the nation.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done on energy. I am incredibly fortunate, as minister, to be supported in many ways. As I said, people are very kind to me in their contributions, but let me be the one who says what everybody knows, which is that lots of people—my advisers in my office, my colleagues in the government and the people from our department—provide constructive feedback and good ideas on a very regular basis. I am pleased to have Vince Duffy and Mark Pedler in the gallery here today. They have been waiting since late morning just in case it was necessary to go into committee. I have been reliably informed by our whip that we will not be going into committee. Let me just acknowledge the work of those two people and people just like them when it comes to delivering on our energy policy.

The Deputy Premier was very kind in regard to her comments about 24 January, when we had the hottest day on record in South Australia. Through the work of many people, not least the executive director from the Department for Energy and Mining, Vince Duffy, we managed to get through that day. I am a cautious guy. We have a big job ahead of us. I do not underestimate what is necessary to deliver cheaper, more affordable and cleaner electricity to the people of South Australia, but I am heartened by the green shoots we have seen so far.

I am heartened by the fact that retail electricity prices have flattened. I am optimistic that it is the turning of the tide. I do not take that for granted, but I am optimistic that, if we keep working on it, that is where we will get to. I am heartened that, for the first summer that I can remember, we have got through without any load shedding whatsoever. That is not to say that nobody had a blackout in their home or their business, but they were because of equipment failures, typically from an SAPN perspective. I am not trying to point the finger at them, as those things do happen, but we got through this summer without any forced load shedding.

There was no time when we did not have enough electricity available in our system this summer. Do I assume that means it is easy from here on in? No, of course not. I am a cautious person, and I know how hard we have to work to make sure that this is the turning of the tide and that these positive signs continue unabated. I say through you, Mr Speaker, to the Deputy Premier: nobody was sweating more than Vince Duffy on that day, and there is nobody who deserves more credit from a South Australian perspective for getting us through that day than Mr Vince Duffy. I thank him for that: he was one of the most important people in a team.

We are not going about our energy policy in any way with regard to politics: we are going about our energy policy with regard to doing what is the very best for South Australian electricity consumers. I have to say that, while we are overwhelmingly on the side of consumers, we acknowledge that suppliers must have a positive, sustainable, attractive role to play in all this.

If we do not have suppliers in whatever part of the supply chain for which they take responsibility, if we do not have suppliers who want to be in the market—and that typically means that they see they can make money for their shareholders by being in the market—then consumers have nothing. So while, yes, of course we are overwhelmingly on the side of consumers, we recognise that suppliers need to find it attractive to be in the market or consumers are supplied with nothing.

We will not play politics with this. We are glad that it seems that, after a vote in a few minutes, we will get this bill through this chamber and almost certainly through the other chamber. We will continue to work incredibly hard, and we recognise that there is a whole team of people. Everybody on the energy side of the Department for Energy and Mining is doing what is best for South Australians. Everybody on this side of the chamber is doing what is best for South Australians. My ministerial advisers are doing what is best for South Australians. I know that approaching it that way will do better for South Australians than we became accustomed to over the last 16 years.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.