Bills

Statutes Amendment (National Energy Laws) (Penalties and Enforcement) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2020.)

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:06): I can indicate to the house that the government's legislation is part of a COAG process, I have been so briefed.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, not to interrupt at this stage, by indication are you the lead speaker?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I was about to say I am, indeed, the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. The government briefing to me is a bit light on detail, but that is the choice of the minister, I suppose. I was given a one-page briefing with seven paragraphs on the national energy laws enforcement bill. I will read it into the Hansard as it is the briefing the opposition is relying on to allow a swift passage of this legislation through both houses of parliament. It states:

At the COAG Energy Council meeting on March 20 2020 Ministers agreed to the Statutes Amendment (National Energy Laws)(Penalties and Enforcement) Bill 2020 (attached).

The Bill updates the enforcement regimes for the National Energy Laws.

South Australia is the lead legislator for National Energy Laws.

It continues:

The COAG Energy Council (Council) recognises the importance of a robust enforcement regime underpinning the National Energy Laws. This gives all participants, especially customers, the necessary confidence to participate in the energy markets.

The Bill includes a three tier civil penalty regime and indexation of penalties in line with CPI:

Tier 1 consists of penalties of either up to $10 million, or 10% of turnover or three times the benefit gained for certain breaches (whichever is greater)

Tier 2 consists of penalties of up to $1.435 million.

Tier 3 consists of penalties of up to $170,000.

The Australian Energy Regulator's (AER) information gathering powers are enhanced—

which is a good thing—

under the bill and it is provided with the power to compel the giving of oral evidence.

That is a long overdue reform, and I congratulate the COAG Energy Council. I suppose it is fair to say that this is the COAG Energy Council's final meeting. I will ask the minister in committee about whether or not, given the new national cabinet arrangements, the COAG Energy Council will continue post national cabinet. The briefing continues:

The Bill also expands the orders the AER can seek from a court. This includes non-pecuniary orders (such as community service orders) and an order requiring compliance with a compulsory notice.

And that is it, sir. That is what—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They have been found. It was the one good news story of 2020.

The Hon. S.J.R. Patterson: What about Liverpool?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, that was inevitable. I did a bit of research on this, and the briefing was helpful. I would like to thank the officers for the briefing. That was fine. It occurred to me that I hope I was not as scant with briefings to the then shadow minister as he is with me. I am not assigning any blame. I am not assigning any ulterior motive. I just think that there could have been some more information.

I went on the COAG Energy Council's website and found some information that was a little bit interesting. I found a consultation draft paper that was issued in July. What I find interesting, and my understanding, is that the legislation was drafted and accepted by the COAG Energy Council and the South Australian government agreed to pass that legislation and then began consultation on the bill. I am not sure if that is standard practice. I might be guilty of the same thing. I do not know, but I find it interesting that the national energy laws' civil penalty provisions are being consulted on after the act has been drafted. The act has been decided, the laws are being passed and now we are going to go out to talk to industry.

There might have already been widespread consultation beforehand, which would explain that, and these could just be some explanatory notes going out afterwards, so maybe there is nothing wrong. I am just going to pose the questions, which is what our job is. I always enjoy having the member for Morphett in the chamber. He always has a great smile on his face. He is a happy bloke.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: He's a great minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, we will see. He was a very good member of the Public Works Committee—exceptional, diligent and read all his papers. He asked good and interesting questions, and I look forward to him in the house. Hopefully, he will be better than he was at Collingwood and, hopefully, the career lasts longer.

The Hon. S.J.R. Patterson: It was an 11-year career.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That's right: it was a good career. I remember watching that first game. You should be very proud of playing for Collingwood. Someone needs to be proud of playing for Collingwood.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Who did you play for?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's just a joke, Dan, calm down. I have found some overview online (which was not given to me by the department) talking about the penalties and the decision matrix, which is all very fascinating reading. I am sure the minister has read all this thoroughly as well and understands it all perfectly, and when I ask him questions on it he will have all the answers.

I would like to say again that the opposition will be supporting this bill through all stages. I imagine I will be the only speaker on the bill from the opposition, but I would not mind going into committee, if we could, just to ask a few questions. With those few remarks, I commend the bill to the house. I look forward to asking a few questions in committee and, after we finish those questions, the bill's speedy passage through both houses.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON (Morphett—Member of the Executive Council, Minister for Trade and Investment) (12:13): I also take the opportunity to speak here in parliament today about the Statutes Amendment (National Energy Laws) (Penalties and Enforcement) Bill 2020. This bill seeks to amend three laws: the National Electricity Law, in part 2; the National Energy Retail Law, in part 3; and the National Gas Law, in part 4. Amongst them, these three laws provide the regulatory framework that really does underpin our energy market. The rules that are set up in these laws put obligations on all the market participants, whether that be generators, the retailers or the networks.

The energy market itself, particularly in relation to electricity, is certainly undergoing a substantial transition, none more so than what we see in the National Electricity Market. The National Electricity Market was designed at a time in the 1990s when electricity generation was based predominantly upon what could be described as large centralised base load generators, which then had gas peaking plants to cover the differences between the minimum and maximum demand that occur during a 24-hour cycle.

We are now in a time where we have moved away from those large, centralised base load power stations. The mix of electricity generation into the National Electricity Market certainly includes much more electricity that is coming from intermittent sources such as wind and solar. At times, they really do have quite a large difference in their supply, even over a day.

Just on that, the Australian Energy Market Operator released a report in October 2019, entitled 'Maintaining power system security with high penetrations of wind and solar generation: international insights for Australia'. On page 9 of that report, it states:

Australia is experiencing some of the highest instantaneous levels of wind and solar generation in the world. Synchronously interconnected power systems have operated for periods where wind and solar energy was larger than demand—including Denmark (157%) and South Australia (142%).

I make that point to show that South Australia is leading the way in terms of how it generates its electricity from renewable sources. It is now based a lot more on weather. Not only does the weather affect electricity customer demand, it now also affects the supply side of electricity significantly.

Unfortunately, prior to the Marshall Liberal government being elected in March 2018, this transition was reasonably unmanaged. This came at a significant economic cost to electricity consumers in South Australia. Fortunately, since that time, the energy minister, who has brought this bill to parliament, has been working really hard to get that back on track and get an orderly transition to renewable energy—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Did your office write this for him?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: —there is more—whilst reducing bills to South Australians even further and growing our economy. This does require the right mix of interconnection, storage—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: —no, no—generation and smart technology to balance supply and demand. This mix is encapsulated in the energy solution action plan that was released in June of this year. The plan addresses the very serious issues this government inherited, and one of those is the very real prospect of a negative operational demand. We need to make sure we get on top of that to ensure that we have a secure system and energy supply in place.

One very important aspect of that is fast-tracking the South Australia-New South Wales interconnector by underwriting early works to that really important project. The Australian Energy Market Operator has made it clear that delivering on this interconnector is critical to our power system security. We are certainly doing it the right way in terms of the transition being undertaken in South Australia and we are hopeful that it will encourage other jurisdictions as they go about their transition as well.

I frame that because we need to update the laws that will regulate this transition so that they can adapt to what is, as I said, a really significant technological change. At the same time, we need to make sure that these laws allow for that electricity to be affordable, reliable and, importantly, very secure as well.

In terms of how this bill got here—the member for West Torrens did ask about that—the Council of Australian Governments Energy Council is responsible for these key national reforms in the energy sector, these three laws that we are amending today. The energy council recognises the importance of the national energy laws being underpinned by a very robust enforcement regime, which is what this amendment bill is all about. It will give participants, especially customers, the necessary confidence to participate in these markets.

It is the Australian Energy Regulator's role to monitor this, investigate, and also enforce compliance with these national energy laws. The genesis of this bill began in 2010 when the Energy Council agreed to:

…a comprehensive review of the enforcement regimes across all the national energy laws to ensure that the interests of customers continue to be protected, and the integrity of the energy market is maintained.

Unfortunately, the speed of electricity is certainly much faster than the speed of legislation and it has taken quite a while to get from 2010 to where we are today. Along the way, there have been various reviews and recommendations around this, culminating in July 2018 when the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission released its retail electricity pricing inquiry, entitled 'Restoring electricity affordability and Australia's competitive advantage'.

The recommendations here span the entire energy supply chain and focus on four main areas: boosting competition, lowering costs in the networks, enhancing customer experiences and outcomes, and also improving business outcomes. A number of recommendations from this report were in relation to the existing penalties that were in place at the time and then result in what we have here today in the bill. In terms of some of the comments from the ACCC, they include:

The ACCC considers that the current civil penalty amounts are insufficient to impose a credible level of deterrence and provide meaningful consequences to businesses. Therefore, the ACCC considers that the penalties should be increased to provide that the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) with a greater level of flexibility in its response to address breaches of the national energy laws.

Out of the report there were a number of recommendations. This was again consulted on, which goes to the point the member for West Torrens made. After the consultation on this report by the ACCC, the COAG Energy Council met on 20 March 2020, and at that meeting the ministers agreed to this bill we see before us. Once agreed by that energy council, South Australia is the lead legislating body for the making of legislative amendments and regulations, hence why it is in the parliament here and we are debating it at the moment.

Overall, the proposed changes detailed in this bill are aimed at strengthening the Australian Energy Regulator's enforcement powers and also the penalty regime under which the national energy laws operate. The idea is that it will provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the law and their rules, particularly in the case of significant breaches or breaches that will impact on the integrity of the energy market.

In summary, the key changes that will be implemented in this legislation include adopting a three-tier civil penalty regime into these laws, increasing the civil and offence penalty levels and indexing them in line with the consumer price index and also enhancing the AER's information gathering powers. I will talk a little about the penalties framework in these national energy laws. The bill has three main effects, which will be to increase the penalty rates, create a new tiered civil penalty framework and also provide for the penalties to be indexed into the future.

As an example, the current corporate civil maximum penalty rate of $100,000 was introduced when the first laws were made in 1996, and it has not been increased since that time. Most of the penalties applied for offences under the existing laws are set at this level currently, so in terms of today's dollars that is approximately $170,000 to $180,000. In some cases, these penalties may not actually work as an adequate deterrent for participants breaching their regulatory obligations. Certain provisions of the national energy laws, regulations and rules are said to be civil provisions if they are so identified in the laws or in associated regulations.

If a person or a corporation does not comply with or breaches the requirements set out in the civil penalty provision, the AER may either take action resulting in the court applying a civil penalty or issue an infringement notice. Each of the national energy laws specifies the monetary penalty amounts which may be applied in the case of a breach of civil penalty provision. In the case of a matter that the AER does take to court, the law specifies the maximum civil penalty a court may apply, but it should be noted that the court has discretion to apply a lesser amount.

In the case of an infringement notice, however, the amount of that penalty specified in the law is not subject to the discretion of the AER and so infringement penalties are generally much lower as a result than the court-imposed penalty would be. The bill itself, as I discussed earlier, adopts a three-tier civil penalty regime, which is aimed at ensuring that the AER has a sufficient level of flexibility to adequately respond to breaches of those national energy laws.

What that means is that the structure would allow specific provisions of the laws, regulations and rules to be either subject to lesser or greater civil penalties depending on what the nature of the breach is. With respect to those levels, those tiers, breaches of a tier 1 provision do incur a maximum penalty of the greater of:

a monetary penalty of up to $10 million;

a monetary penalty reflecting an amount calculated to be three times the financial benefit gained as a result of the breach; or

a monetary penalty reflecting an amount calculated to be 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation that actually engaged in that breach.

This tier 1 reflects the ACCC's recommendations that the maximum penalties under the national laws become more aligned with those that are in the current Australian Consumer Law. If I talk about the other tiers, a breach of a tier 2 provision carries a penalty of up to $1.435 million and breaches of tier 3 provisions incur penalties of up to $170,000. That roughly equates to the original $100,000 I mentioned that was first set up in 1996. I should note that most of the penalties and breaches would be covered in that tier 3.

We must also make sure that the value of these penalty increases is maintained into the future, so the amendments in this bill also allow for the penalty rates to be indexed by CPI in the future. As I said before, the existing penalties had not been increased since 1996. The timing of the indexation that is set to occur in this bill will have a first adjustment being made on 1 July 2023 and from then on from 1 July every three years after that date.

As I said, if all those existing civil penalty provisions were carried across to the new structure, they are mostly going to fall into the tier 3 area. However, there are certainly two breaches that are subject to the higher tiers. One of those relates to the Retailer Reliability Obligation, which was passed here and brought in by the energy minister in the early days of this Marshall Liberal government. Again, it was designed to try to get security of energy supply and increased capacity into our electricity market.

Importantly, if a forecast supply shortfall is identified by the modelling into the future, this would trigger an obligation on electricity retailers to demonstrate that their contracting can meet their share of peak demand one year in advance. By doing that, as I said, it acts as a bit of a capacity mechanism that will integrate into the existing energy market. It is really aimed at ensuring that electricity is available when it is needed and we are not having to a ramp up emergency electricity generation, which of course becomes very costly during those peak times of demand, usually in the high-energy demand months of summer.

Presently, the Retailer Reliability Obligation provides a civil penalty provision up to amounts but not exceeding, for a natural person or a body corporate, $1 million for a breach relating to a reliability gap period and $10 million for a breach that relates to a second or subsequent reliability gap period. What that means is that the original penalty regime will now be updated to fall within tier 2 for the first offence and then move into tier 1, upwards of $10 million, for a second or subsequent reliability gap period.

Another serious breach that is subject to the tier 1 offence relates to breaches of the rebidding provisions. In terms of how that plays out, generators either offer or bid to supply certain amounts of power at a particular price up to a day and a half before that power is needed. In so doing, those generators must be genuinely prepared to honour that bid if AEMO calls on them to actually supply at that price.

Of course, if there is an unexpected need for more or less supply as the time draws nearer, then generators are able to submit a new offer or a rebid. Naturally, rebidding allows participants to adjust their bids in response to new information as it becomes available—maybe if another generator had gone off line or if the wind conditions were not as high as first forecast. That allows them to adjust.

Acceptable rebidding would actually promote efficient outcomes for a consumer. If it were a case of more wind being available, that would allow prices to come down. Unfortunately, where this can be a concern is when a generator tries to game the system, either by rebidding its supply at a much higher price than they originally bid right before the dispatch time without any real reason to do that, or when they know in advance that they intend to rebid but delay announcing it until the last possible moment, therefore again putting up the prices.

These actions are reprehensible and we need to crack down on them. They are a serious breach of the rules in place at the present time. Reflecting on the fact that these actions will have an impact on seriously distorting the market and jacking up the wholesale costs, which then flow on to the general consumer in South Australia, these rebidding offences will be classified as a tier 1 offence. Penalties can be up to $10 million or three times the benefit gained from breaching the rules, or 10 per cent of their annual turnover.

I have gone through the penalties, and it is important that these act as a serious deterrent. This bill provides that. It will enhance the Australian Energy Regulator's information-gathering powers as well, which is the other aspect of this bill. The idea is that it can then act to make sure that allegations such as I have outlined around rebidding, etc., can be fully investigated.

Powers that currently do not exist but that this bill seeks to add include implementing the oral evidence power. This will ensure that the Australian Energy Regulator will be able to report on and use that oral evidence in its powers when it conducts investigations. Of course, there need to be safeguards put in place, so at the same time as it being allowed to exercise this oral evidence power and uncover evidence orally the Australian Energy Regulator is also required to prepare and publish guidelines on the exercise of these information-gathering powers.

The bill also expands the orders the Australian Energy Regulator can seek from a court. This includes non-pecuniary orders and orders requiring compliance with a compulsory notice as well. The idea is that the courts can also provide community service orders as part of the penalty regime; that might include communicating their breaches of these acts to the general public.

In summary, this bill will establish a more flexible and sophisticated three-tiered penalty regime that is more closely aligned to the Australian Consumer Law. In so doing, the bill will help to reduce energy prices by significantly increasing the maximum penalties, as well as providing for periodic indexation of those penalties, that can be incurred by marketing participants for serious breaches.

This will impact on wholesale prices which, again, flow through to South Australian electricity bills because it provides a serious disincentive for generators, network providers and retailers trying to put up prices. Rather, it makes them much more efficient so that we have a much more efficient and competitive market, resulting in costs being kept down for the end user.

Again, I commend the minister for bringing this to the house. It is another way that the Marshall Liberal government is lowering costs and helping to reduce energy prices for all South Australians.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:33): I am happy to rise to speak in relation to this piece of legislation, the Statutes Amendment (National Energy Laws) (Penalties and Enforcement) Bill, and endorse the comments of the shadow minister on this. Clearly there is more information we need to receive rather than the very short briefing he was provided, and it is pretty disappointing that the opposition—which has generally been very supportive in relation to these national energy law bills and working in a bipartisan way—would not provide us with more fulsome information to enable us to reach a considered opinion on this.

If the minister has nothing to hide about this legislation and has nothing to hide about the process that was undertaken, then he would make sure there is a significant amount of briefing material available to the opposition to enable the parliament to form a considered opinion. The fact that only a few paragraphs of information were provided is quite telling of the way this government view their approach to briefing the opposition and to parliamentary debates. So that is disappointing.

In relation to energy more broadly, the people of South Australia remember one number very clearly in relation to energy policy, and that is a promise that was made by the Premier before the last election. That number is $302. The promise was made that there would be a reduction in electricity bills of $302. That has not happened. I have not spoken to any member of my electorate who has informed me that they have had a $302 reduction in their electricity bill. Clearly, we know how that promise came about. Clearly, we remember the very embarrassing press conference where the now Minister for Energy was correcting the Premier during the course of that press conference.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It made a great ad.

Mr PICTON: It did make a very compelling advertisement. We also remember how the Electoral Commission viewed some of their promises in relation to energy, and we also remember that the government's own modelling showed that the vast majority of what they promised was going to happen anyway without any action on behalf of them. We have not seen that promise fulfilled and South Australians will be judging over the next 18 months.

I noted the Premier was saying yesterday in question time that it is a very long way to the next election, but it is not that long. It is sooner than you think. Eighteen months to bring in force the promise of a $302 reduction in electricity bills is a big task that is going to fall on the Minister for Energy's shoulders. He will be judged on whether he has met that commitment or not and whether he has delivered that promise to the people of South Australia or not.

What have we seen in relation to the energy policy of this government since they were elected? They inherited what was a very strong plan that we had in place in relation to securing our state's energy future, taking control of our state's energy future, and what has this government done since then? The first thing that happened was that under your watch, the solar thermal plant for Port Augusta has fallen over. It has fallen over under this minister.

Under this minister, the promise of solar thermal, which was contracted and which was in the works, has fallen over. No support has been provided by this government to ensure that that would continue. This was a significant opportunity for people of Upper Spencer Gulf. This was a significant opportunity for our energy future here in South Australia. Contracts were in place, as the minister says, and now that project has fallen over. The government have done nothing to try to make sure that that project would happen, and it is completely off the agenda now.

The benefit of this project was going to be that we would have a renewable project that would provide base load power, it would provide employment to the area and we would be once again leading the world. Now it is completely off the table. There is no prospect, as I understand it—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Think of the ads in Port Augusta.

Mr PICTON: That's right. There is no prospect that the government is doing anything about reviving that potential for Port Augusta. That is certainly something we will be talking about over the next 18 months, that up in the Port Augusta region a lot of promises were made to people and nothing has been delivered.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Who promised a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta, Dan? You did.

Mr PICTON: That's right. There was a promise made by the Minister for Energy, the current local member, that this would happen. Not only is he the local member but he is in charge of the energy portfolio. He had the ability to make that project happen and nothing has been done, the project has fallen over, and I think people will very significantly remember that over the next 18 months. We will certainly be doing our bit to inform people of that over the next 18 months.

What else has happened in relation to energy policy under this government? Well, we had in place a state-owned power plant for the first time since the current Treasurer sold ETSA. The current Treasurer, when he was the former treasurer, sold all our power plants. For the first time since then, we had a state-owned power plant in place. This was a significant change in our energy future when, for the first time since the Hon. Rob Lucas and his Liberal colleagues sold the Electricity Trust of South Australia, we would have the government owning a power plant.

That has now been flogged off. That has now been privatised by this minister and this Premier, and that is very significant because it means one additional step where we are no longer having the control that we were seeking to have in the market. The benefit of this plant was not that it was going to play a day-to-day role in the energy market but that it was going to provide the reserve capacity so the government would be able to intervene if that were necessary.

Now, by putting it back into the market, there is no additional reserve capacity available. That significant power that the government would have has gone, that role that we have as the public of South Australia collectively in our government, saying, 'We actually believe that this is a public good. We actually believe that this is a public utility service that the government should be involved in,' is now just flung back to the market under this government. That is a significant weakening of our state government role in the energy market.

Another thing that has happened is that the state government are putting all their eggs into the basket of trying to get an additional interconnector to New South Wales. Where is that interconnector? There is no interconnector being constructed. There is in fact not even an interconnector that is fully funded. There has been an amount of funding that has been provided through the regulatory processes, which will be paid for by the consumers in their energy bills, but there is a significant gap.

The cost of that interconnector has significantly blown out, and there is not a solution for where that remaining amount of funding is going to be sourced from. That means there is no construction happening of this interconnector. We do not know when construction will happen on this interconnector, and we do not know if the Minister for Energy and member for Stuart's solemn promise that this interconnector will be in place by the time of the next election will happen. Once again, the Premier says the election is a long way away. Well, it is getting closer.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Like Mike Rann used to say, 'It's later than you think.'

Mr PICTON: It's later than you think, and there is no construction started. There are no proper funding arrangements in place to get this happening. Another issue with the interconnector is that, even if eventually they put in place some arrangement to get this happening, which seems a long way away now, there are significant risks to our state in terms of our own sovereign base load capacity due to this interconnector.

There is a significant risk that, because of this additional interconnector, we will see the shutdown of South Australian generators, which is an absolute risk for the future of our supply here in South Australia. If we do not have the capacity to generate our own power the sovereign way here in South Australia around the clock and we are reliant upon interconnectors, then that is absolutely a risk for our supply. Clearly, one of the hallmarks of the fact that this interconnector will be built is that there will be a lot of mass coal-fired plants in New South Wales delivering a lot of our energy here, into South Australia.

What does that mean for the future of Torrens Island? What does that mean for the future of Pelican Point? What does that mean for the future of Osborne? What does that mean for the future of the state-owned power plant that you are now privatising? The base load supply to South Australians of all those plants will now be up against much larger coal-fired power plants in New South Wales. Market economists have pointed out that this is a risk to South Australia and the security of our supply. It has not been sufficiently answered how that will be addressed and how we will make sure that we still have sufficient generators in operation in South Australia.

The last element of the government's energy plan, such as it is, that we have heard about in recent weeks, is that the government is now embarking upon changes to the rules that will enable them to turn off solar panels and batteries that people have installed on their own properties. That is causing very significant concern in the community. People have invested a lot of money in their solar and batteries on the basis that they will be able to use them and be able to export power when they want to. These are very fundamental changes to what has been in place and there is a significant amount of concern about that.

I think that if we see these changes come through, there will be a lot of anger. When you go over the crest of a hill in my electorate and see the roofs of houses, well on 50 per cent now have solar panels. Those people have invested their money on the basis that they will be able to get a return from that. The rules proposed by the energy minister are a fundamental change in that they will be able to be switched off when the government chooses. We are very concerned and we will continue to raise people's concerns about these rule changes and what they will mean for ordinary South Australians.

Here we have a government that has promised the world on bill reductions, promised the world on solar thermal, promised the world on the interconnector being up and running, but we are seeing nothing delivered. We are seeing privatisation. We are seeing the interconnector not being delivered. We are seeing solar thermal that was promised by the minister in his own seat off the table, and we are now seeing these rule changes brought in for people's own solar panels and batteries in their homes. Those elements combined are not what was promised.

When this government took office they thought they would have an easy ride on energy. They have done nothing positive; in fact, they have done a number of detrimental things that we will keep raising again and again in the lead-up to the next election.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (12:47): There is a bit to discuss there. I will start with the shadow minister's comments. I appreciate the fact that as lead speaker he said, true to his word, that this has come from COAG so the opposition will support it, exactly as I did when I was a shadow minister and, the same thing, it was reciprocated. If nothing else, that is a positive for the South Australian parliament. It is a positive for our successive governments and oppositions that we will support decisions, that we will allow decisions of COAG to come through our parliament.

Another thing that the shadow minister said was to do with what he described as a 'light briefing'. Let me be very clear and put on the record that, to the best of my knowledge, he receives these briefings largely from the same people who used to work in the department when he was minister. He receives them in the same way that I used to receive them. In fact, I can assure the house that I have made it very clear to departmental and ministerial staff that the opposition should get the same treatment that I did when I was shadow minister; no interference from me. Whatever the appropriate briefing is is whatever the appropriate briefing is.

If the minister believes, as he says, that it was a light briefing, implying that it was too light and there was not enough information and potentially some was being withheld, the shadow minister could have asked some questions. In the briefing, he could have asked some questions. Since the briefing, he could have asked some questions. Of course, today, he has the chance to ask some questions. So we will find out exactly what it was that was missing from the briefing.

My opinion is that it is a pretty straightforward bill. I also have an opinion that, if there was not a great deal of content, albeit 100 per cent accurate and all that was necessary, if there was not a great deal there, the shadow minister would have said it was not enough. If we gave him as much as anybody could possibly think of, he would have said it was too much. That is just the way things work here. But I refute any suggestion that the briefing was inappropriate in any way whatsoever. The shadow minister has the opportunity to ask the minister here in parliament as much as he wants and he could have asked questions since the briefing.

Consultation on the bill was another thing that the shadow minister mentioned. Consultation has been going on since 2010 by COAG. It has been thorough, and in fact still continues, and that is not at all unusual. In consultation on the bill, it was entirely appropriate to have the government and COAG support the bill. Consultation on matters that are reflected in the regulations has been going on since then, and that is standard practice; it has been forever, it was under the last government and is under our government.

Let me come to the shadow minister for health trying to talk on energy. He is not much of a shadow minister for health, to be quite blunt. He was involved with the previous government's failed Transforming Health debacle. Nonetheless, he is the shadow minister for health. I can only assume it is not because of his knowledge of health, it might just be because he is a person they like to send out to make statements on things. But he should stick to his knitting because the things that he suggested are completely misleading.

The first thing that he mentioned was about the $302 commitment and, yes, we stand by that. We stand by that regularly and it is on track. We have had it independently assessed by ESCOSA. In fact, we did not have it independently assessed by ESCOSA. ESCOSA took it upon itself to independently assess it.

ESCOSA's findings are that, in the last couple of years, there has been a $158 decrease for the average household electricity price. With $158 so far, out of a $302 commitment, we have our nose in front. We are doing a bit better than we said we would. I think people have every right to investigate how we are going in regard to that. An independent assessment says that we are actually on track, so for anybody in the opposition to suggest that is not the case is either deliberately misleading or is just uninformed.

With regard to the suggestion of solar thermal, the shadow minister for health's suggestion that this is somehow a broken promise—not only by the government, not only by me as Minister for Energy and Mining but also by me as the member for Stuart—is absolutely disgracefully inaccurate and misleading, and he should be ashamed of himself. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself for saying things like that in this place which are so deliberately wrong. They are completely inappropriate. The truth of the matter is—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A point of order, sir: I do not mean to interrupt the minister, but he has used the word 'misleading' now I think three times in reference to the member for Kaurna's comments. The only way you can accuse a parliamentarian of misleading the house is through substantive motion. I ask the member to withdraw the accusation 'misleading' and use another term more applicable to the decorum of the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Minister, are you happy to withdraw that term and be very careful about the wording you use? I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept that technical point of order and withdraw the word 'misleading'. It was inaccurate, and I do not think it was a mistake; I will put it that way. It was inaccurate, and I do not believe it was a mistake on his part. I think he meant to say what he said. Let me tell you what did actually happen. I certainly was a very strong advocate—in fact, before anybody in the then government, the current opposition, ever knew what solar thermal was, I was a strong proponent for the fact that Port Augusta would be an outstanding place to host a solar thermal generator.

In fact, I advocated to the then minister and the then premier to investigate that possibility to see what could be done. I asked them to weigh up the costs and the benefits and to look into it. In fact, when the previous government entered into a contract with a company called SolarReserve to build that power station, I gave them credit for that. I said that they did a good job in doing that, based on the knowledge that I had as a local member of parliament and as a member of the opposition.

You can imagine my disappointment, frustration and more when I came into government and found that the previous government knew, in advance of the last election, that the company that they had contracted with had gone back to them before the election and said, 'We are not going to be able to do it.' But the previous government did not tell a soul about that. They did not tell a soul about that. The previous government were told very plainly by the company that they had contracted to build this solar thermal plant that that company could not deliver on that contract. The previous government knew that, but they chose to keep it quiet, to not tell anybody and just hide the facts and hope that it would not come out and hurt them.

The reality is that after the election it did come out and it has hurt them. It has been a great shame. With our department, with my office, I did an enormous amount to see if we could help this company deliver, but the reality is that the previous government, possibly knowingly, entered into a contract with them that they could not deliver on. They could not deliver on that contract.

You can only imagine the disappointment for the people in Port Augusta when they found out that the previous government deliberately and knowingly entered into a contract that was going to be incredibly difficult. The company told them that they could not do it, and the previous government kept it quiet. So that is exactly what happened there, and when that happened we did everything that we possibly could to try to help that company, and local people know that.

The next thing that was mentioned was the diesel generators. In my office here in Parliament House, I have a copy of a cartoon that was in The Advertiser. On the one hand it shows 'Jay's fantasy world', as it was described, with the Tesla battery in bright light, in green and light blue, in a lovely environment, but right next to it is 'Jay's dirty world', which is a picture of a dark diesel generator pumping out steam, with a pit bull terrier or something like that guarding a locked-up gate. That shows, very clearly, the two-faced energy policy of the previous government: show the fancy, glowing, glossy stuff that all looks good; tell everybody about that, but, by the way, try to avoid the background.

The background, in this part of the energy policy that the member for Kaurna referred to, was the fact that the government committed over $600 million of taxpayers' money for diesel generators that they did not ever use, at the same time that they were saying they wanted to get away from dirty fuel. They were only to be there as backup. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.