Hydrogen Jobs Plan

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Leader of the Opposition) (14:16): My question is to the Premier. How much will the state government have spent all up on the shelved Hydrogen Jobs Plan? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The Auditor General's Report reveals that $285.2 million has been spent thus far, including $85.7 million of written-off expenses.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:16): The Leader of the Opposition again has probably not entirely read the Auditor-General's Report. He's talking about accounting standards, accounting treatment, and the way the Auditor-General refers to these things. I will give you an example. You might remember the previous Weatherill government deferred the extension of the Port rail spur, and we had purchased concrete sleepers and we had purchased rail lines, and members opposite criticised this as, 'They're being written off,' forced as an accounting treatment. But when we did ultimately get re-elected in 2022 and deliver the Port rail spur those same assets were used and they were put back on the rail line.

Members opposite were silent about that. But of course the Auditor-General looks at things in snapshots in time in terms of projects, and this is an accounting treatment. For members opposite to say that these are impairments or are so-called losses, as they would say, without taking into account the fact that the government has announced the policy to sell the generators, to make sure that they are available in the South Australian market and without taking into account any of that revenue and then pretending that somehow it is lost is disingenuous. It is just not accurate.

What they are attempting to do is confuse people about what is really going on. The fact is we have an asset and that asset is the generators and those generators have a value. The other asset we have is the upgrade to energy infrastructure that we did on the Upper Spencer Gulf. Members opposite were bemoaning that investment in ElectraNet's infrastructure. What they do not mention is they spent $400 million on upgrading an extension line to New South Wales that was meant to cost $1.2 billion and is now costing well over $2 billion and it's still not operational.

When they invest in energy infrastructure it's okay and it's prudent but when we do it it's a waste. When they invest in hydrogen, it makes sense, but when we invest in hydrogen it makes no sense. When they do a hydrogen hub, it's all okay, but when we invest in hydrogen it does not add up. They put out tweets and SMSs that talk about hydrogen, hydrogen, hydrogen, but when we invest in hydrogen they claim it's a mistake. Members opposite should take a long, hard look at themselves about the inconsistency of their policy positions. Their commitment to Project EnergyConnect has required this state government—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order from the deputy leader.

Mr TEAGUE: I hesitate to interrupt the minister really, but it's standing order 98(a). He really does need to answer the question. It is a straightforward question about how much was spent on this particular abandoned project.

The SPEAKER: We've still got a bit over a minute. I think the Treasurer is coming to that part of the answer now.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Ultimately, the question that the opposition are trying to get at is: what will the value be of the generators, what will be left and what is the liability that the state has accrued? The truth is that from my perspective the investment in Whyalla, the investment in the energy infrastructure and the investment in the assets and the generators are all tick, tick, tick. They are all good outcomes for the people of South Australia. We will get an extra 200 megawatts of generation. We will get upgrades to energy infrastructure in Whyalla. We have spent money on intellectual property and engineering reports that will be valuable to anyone who purchases those generators. They are not lost assets.

I go back to my original point: when members opposite invested in energy infrastructure that is still not connected five years later—five years later—don't tell us about wasted money on infrastructure.