Question Time

Project EnergyConnect

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Mining. Did the South Australian government support the ElectraNet and TransGrid rule change submission to the Australian Energy Market Commission relating to the financing of the interconnector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:02): This is an important issue. Everybody knows what a fantastic project the interconnector will be between South Australia and New South Wales. In fact, those opposite knew how fantastic it would be until we decided to make it our election policy, and then they decided they didn't like it. But I am optimistic.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am optimistic that they will come on board because they are the only ones left. The Leader of the Opposition asks an important question. What he is referring to is the Australian Energy Market Commission's draft determination in response to TransGrid's request for a greater return to their company if and when the interconnector is built. So let me just make it really clear for the house: this is not—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: If? You said it was going to be built.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Oh, it's off, is it?

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is warned. The Minister for Energy and Mining has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: What on earth is going on over there? I think that it would have been very unlikely that TransGrid would have said to the AEMC, when they asked for the rule change, 'when it's built' because TransGrid was asking for more money, so that would have been quite foolish of TransGrid not to have said 'if and when' it's built.

The reality is that TransGrid put a rule change request so that, in TransGrid's words—and of course I am summarising—if and when the interconnector is built could they have a higher return? Could they have a higher return? Fair enough to ask, right? But the AEMC said, no, they could not have a higher return.

Let me just say again that this is not AEMC making a judgement in this draft determination and the key part of their response to the request for more money on the interconnector. It's actually saying, 'If and when the interconnector is built, we are not going to grant you more money than you would already get under the Australian Energy Regulator's process.' But the AEMC did say this interconnector is really important.

The AEMC also said in their draft determination that, without extra money, the interconnector is already eminently investable. Those opposite can make a fuss if they want to. They can carry on and say, 'If, if, if,' whatever that meant. They want to make it appear as if it's a problem. The AEMC in its draft determination has said that TransGrid cannot have the extra money that TransGrid has asked for. AEMC has said, 'You can have the money that is already part of the natural process that the AER is going through.'

Here we have a fantastic project. It is underway. We have committed money for early works on the South Australian and the New South Wales sides of the border. This is a fantastic project. It is part of the Integrated System Plan that AEMO has put together. All the market authorities believe that this is a very important project. We believe that it is a very important project.

We are already seeing significant decreases in the cost of electricity for all South Australians. We are already seeing a decrease in blackouts. In fact, we have not had one forced load shedding blackout in South Australia since the last election and we are seeing a reduction in emissions as well. When the interconnector is built, that will only make it better for South Australians—lower prices, lower emissions and greater reliability.

The SPEAKER: Before I call the leader, I call to order the member for Playford and the member for Lee.