Power Prices

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Leader of the Opposition) (14:20): My question is to the Premier. What does the Premier say to Drakes Supermarkets boss John-Paul Drake about the cost of power in South Australia? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It has been reported that Drakes' power bills have increased by up to 60 per cent. He said, 'It means we don't grow as much, which means we can't employ people.'

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:21): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and I thank him for referencing Drakes Supermarkets with whom the state government has a good relationship. I have a lot of regard for both John-Paul and also Roger Drake. They are good South Australians who have generated a lot of positivity, not just for our local economy but for consumers and suppliers around the state.

In terms of power prices, I think it is well documented and an established fact for those who have familiarised themselves with energy policy that the single biggest contributor towards higher prices for those who participate within the National Electricity Market, beyond the privatisation exercise that occurred in the 1990s, is, of course, a lack of stability when it comes to major policy that informs investment decisions coming from the commonwealth, or the federal level.

There is a lack of policy consistency that has principally been driven through the prosecution of the climate wars, a partisan political debate—around science, you might add—that has undermined investment throughout the country. We desperately need as a country more generation. Demand for power is going up but the investment in generation is not going up at a pace that is consonant with that growth and demand.

The reason why we have not seen the market and investment follow that demand is because if you are in the business of building a power station, what type of power station do you build? As the Minister for Energy quite rightly articulated, what the country desperately needs now more than anything else is firming services, most likely best represented in the form of fast-start generation powered by gas. But we do not see investment in gas generation, because nobody knows what the rules are and whether or not they are likely to change on a political whim.

The insertion of the coalition to commit to a state-owned, publicly subsidised power utility in the form of nuclear power—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —only adds to the uncertainty, and the new shadow treasurer interjects by referring to the hydrogen jobs plan. What the shadow treasurer fails to understand is that the hydrogen jobs plan provides the exact type of firming service that the market is crying out for, which is very different to nuclear power which provides base load—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The shadow treasurer asks what is the difference between a firming service and nuclear power, which tells you everything you need to know about the man—

Mr Telfer: It is not doing anything for power prices, you have admitted it.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It tells you everything you need to know about the man that would seek to occupy the role of treasurer of the state, the fact that he cannot distinguish between what is a firming service and the role that nuclear power would play in the market of providing baseload generation. What this country needs to drive prices down is policy consistency at a federal level that acknowledges that decarbonisation is necessary and important and allows for a transition to occur in an orderly manner.

It is what anybody who has a basic understanding of the way capital markets operate would appreciate. I know that here today is the former Treasurer of the state, someone who understands the power of government policy intersecting with investment policy to ensure we see investment in power generation. It is what we desperately need. Thank goodness that the shadow treasurer isn't anywhere near the Treasury benches, because that would yet again be another backward step in terms of policy consistency.