National Electricity (South Australia) (Orderly Exit Management Framework) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 November 2024.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (23:30): I would like to thank the Hon. Ms Girolamo, the Hon. Ms Game, the Hon. Mr Simms, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, the Hon. Ms Bonaros, and the Hon. Ms Centofanti for their contributions on this bill. The government notes and acknowledges the concerns that were raised in regard to the speed in which this bill is being introduced and appreciates the cooperation of all those involved in this to have this passed through.

Questions arose of what the urgency is to pass this bill so quickly. As some members have alluded to, South Australia is the lead legislator for national energy laws, and that means there is a particular responsibility for us in this state to assist in many ways for the rest of the country. This framework, I have been advised, has been brought in place mainly to deal with Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

Given that South Australia is the lead legislator, those states have requested that this legislation be passed quickly to allow them to have an orderly exit framework in place, and that is why the ministerial council has determined that this be done at this time. In terms of the overall reason, it is reliability and security. We know that those states—indeed, all states—need reliability and security in terms of their electricity supply. As has been alluded to throughout the second reading contributions, that is a key reason for bringing this bill forward at this time. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Since we last discussed this bill, I have become aware of an article in Renew Economy, dated Wednesday 27 November. I want to read a few lines from that and put those to the minister because I am keen to understand the implications of what has been proposed here. In so doing, I reiterate my profound frustration with the government over the way in which they have dealt with this bill, and my profound irritation in general at the way in which the government is dealing with its legislative agenda at the end of the year. I note the lateness of the hour, 11.34pm, when we are being asked to deal with a complex piece of legislation.

I find it profoundly irritating and very disrespectful to members of parliament, particularly crossbench members who the government relies on for support for their legislative agenda. It is becoming a pattern from some ministers of the Malinauskas government, might I note, who tend to approach matters in this way, and it is wearing very, very thin. Just to put it out there, I am really livid with the way in which this has been approached.

In terms of the issue I want to flag, I will read from this article, 'South Australia wants to bring back mothballed diesel plants due to lack of demand side options', which states:

South Australia's Labor government says it wants to bring back two mothballed diesel generators to act as a supplier of last resort in an admission that the state has failed to deliver enough demand side options as it charges towards its target of 100 per cent renewables...

French owned utility Engie flagged this year it is mothballing its 75 MW Port Lincoln and 63 MW Snuggery diesel generator ahead of an expected final exit in 2028 because they were no longer profitable.

But state energy minister Tom Koutsantonis wants to bring them back on standby—at least for the next two summers as part of a reserve trader mechanism.

Koutsantonis cites concerns about forced load shedding due to high demand in summer, the delays in connecting the new transmission link to New South Wales, and the lack of demand side options.

In the latest move by the state government to ensure it has sufficient dispatchable capacity to fill in short long term supply shortfalls. Earlier this week Renew Economy revealed the state is proposing a capacity market that would include existing and new gas generators, which the clean energy industry has labelled a backward step.

I am very concerned to hear that the government is contemplating bringing back two mothballed diesel generators to act as suppliers. Is that part of this legislative reform that is being rushed through the parliament at the eleventh hour?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, no, the matter referred to is entirely separate to the matters being considered under the bill that is before us. I am advised that that matter is in regard to a reliability and emergency reserves trader provision which currently does not allow that provider to re-enter the market if they have not been out of the market for at least 12 months. That is my advice.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It is taking the steps that are outlined in this article but just not in relation to this bill; is that correct?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that this bill does not cover the circumstances that are outlined in the article in terms of what we have heard in this place just now.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: What I am trying to understand is: is there a correlation between what is being alleged in this article and what this legislation deals with? Again, if I had had the opportunity to actually engage in more thorough briefings with the minister's office, I would have been able to put these questions to them and understand where things fit.

Of course, we did not have that opportunity because of the lightning fast way in which the matter has been progressed. I am just trying to understand: is this something the government is actually doing? Irrespective of whether or not it is part of this legislation, are they taking the actions that are being referred to in this article?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the matters being referred to in the article are in relation to out of market. The bill that we are discussing tonight is in regard to matters already in market.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Is the minister seeking to do what is being alleged in this article?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am unable to make comment on that. What I can say is that the bill that we are discussing tonight does not relate to the matters in the article that has been read out in this place.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Does the government not recognise that there is a potential correlation if the government, on the one hand, is trying to bring back mothballed diesel power plants and, on the other, is also looking at keeping the potential for gas generators? It does paint a picture that the government is actually moving down the path of kickstarting fossil fuels in our state. That is something that we are of course concerned about in the Greens. Again, it is a complex matter. There is no time to be able to interrogate it properly, but I would invite the government to respond to those concerns to put my mind at ease.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The bill that is before us tonight is about thermal generators that may be retiring earlier than expected and before adequate replacement capacity, including transmission infrastructure, is in place. The bill before us is not about bringing back something that has been mothballed, which, if I recall from what the honourable member read out in the article, was being referred to in that article. That is how the two matters are different.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, but it is the case that this new legislation potentially throws a lifeline for gas generators, is it not? I guess my point is there is a nexus between that and fossil fuels, and that is something we are concerned about.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The legislation before us throws a lifeline to those who would otherwise potentially not have reliable and secure electricity available to them.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: When did the government learn that it was going to become the lead legislator for these reforms, and when did it issue the drafting instructions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that South Australia has been the lead legislator for as long as the market has existed. The information that I have in regard to the timeframe is that the reason we are hoping to pass this this week is to enable the rules package of the orderly exit management framework to be finalised and progressed to energy ministers for approval at the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council meeting, which is scheduled for 6 December. There have been two rounds of public stakeholder engagement and then, following that, energy ministers approved the bill to establish the framework in September. It then needed to go through usual South Australian government processes in order for it to be introduced into the House of Assembly.

Certainly, it would have been preferable if we were able to provide more time. I have both noted and acknowledged the inconvenience that that has provided for members in this place. We certainly would hope that this would not be necessary, but given we are now in the final sitting week, unless we want to come back next week, and the ministerial council meeting is scheduled for 6 December, that is the reason for the haste.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I acknowledge that the minister has recognised that, and I thank her for that. I also recognise it is not her portfolio, so I am not trying to shoot the messenger. I appreciate her acknowledgement of that. For the public record, I would be very happy to come back an additional week. Indeed, I would find it preferable than us sitting here throughout the night trying to deal with complex matters like this. I am always very happy to come back and deal with complex matters in an orderly way rather than trying to ram them through in the dead of night.

I am keen to understand, though: when did cabinet actually resolve its position on this? The reason why am asking is I am trying to understand why there was not more of an effort, if the government was working to this timeframe, to engage with members of parliament so that we had an opportunity to really get our heads around this, because the bill was only introduced into the chamber yesterday morning. When did cabinet sign off on the plan?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The bill was actually introduced into the other place on 13 November, so it was not introduced in the other place yesterday, but we certainly acknowledge that it was passed yesterday. I do not have the dates in terms of when it was passed through cabinet.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Regardless of the empty threats about passing this bill tonight or next week, the reality is that if this bill were to be amended in this place, your 6 December meeting is going to be dead in the water, minister. I think it is only fair for us to know the timeframe. I appreciate this is not your portfolio, but the only dates we have in our hands at the moment are the meeting that took place between ministers on 2 September and the meeting that is to take place on 6 December to effectively sign off on whatever it is that we do here, and nothing in between, other than it went to cabinet and got approval.

If we could make some better endeavours to come back to this place and allow us to appreciate when the bill was drafted and when it was approved by cabinet prior to that 13 November date, I suspect that may assist in our deliberations. So 2 September, 6 December and 13 November is when it was introduced downstairs. The two rounds of consultation, in fact, occurred in December 2023 and February 2024.

An exposure bill and a rules package were released for comment between June and July 2024. Subsequent to that, on 2 September 2024, the minister signed off on it. Subsequent to that it went to parliamentary counsel, then it went to cabinet and then it was introduced in the lower house on 13 November. That is the timeframe we have been given and 6 December is the final sign-off date. So when did cabinet approve the draft from parliamentary counsel that we have before us now?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just want to clarify, the honourable member has referred to 2 September, in terms of the energy minister approving the bill to establish the framework. My advice is that is not correct, it was 17 September, but as I said, I actually do not have the date that it was approved in cabinet.

It was inferred that I was trying to be threatening when talking about the next week's sitting, that certainly was not my intention, it was simply an observation that many are expecting to finish this week in terms of our final sitting week.

I think we need to come back to what the key goal of passing this legislation is, if indeed we do get agreement to pass this. South Australia is the lead legislator for national energy laws. That is a particular responsibility. The work that has gone into any nationally agreed set of laws are to be led here in South Australia. There has been a great deal of work with all of the other jurisdictions. I think certainly that is not to suggest that it should be rubberstamped—that is not the implication—but it is that there needs to be, I guess, a particular responsibility that we have and therefore, when we are looking at reliability and security of the supply across the country, then that is a particular responsibility that we bear in mind.

It is also worth reiterating that this will be an opt-in framework. Jurisdictions have the ability to adopt a framework and then opt in through regulation, so again there is more opportunity there, notwithstanding that obviously the framework then would have already passed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not sure if it is actually a question to yourself or to the minister. What is the number of this bill?

The CHAIR: The number is 243.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, I do not have 243 as a bill in my bill folder, and to my observation other members do not have this bill in their bill folders. I note with irony it is called the National Electricity (South Australia) (Orderly Exit Management Framework) Amendment Bill, but we are actually debating a bill we do not even have in our bill folders at the moment. Is the government concerned that we do not actually have the bill in front of us to debate through their haste and that in fact we have nothing orderly happening here at all?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We do not have the bill.

The CHAIR: They have only just arrived, and they are about to be distributed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Whilst we are receiving the bill—and just to be clear, there is no blame being cast on anyone in this place about that particular issue; the blame is all being directed fairly and squarely at the government with respect to that. In regard to the minister's position—and again I acknowledge it is not her bill—we could be the lead legislator on the death penalty or corporal punishment, it does not mean you are going to get it through here just because every jurisdiction says, 'Well, South Australia, you're the lead legislator.'

The least we could do to show some respect to this chamber is to perhaps send a text message to the minister responsible or some other means of communication for anyone who is listening—I am sure the minister is listening at home—and let us know some basic answers to some basic questions. When was the cabinet approval process? We could sit here all night asking a whole series of questions, or the minister could be useful—and I am not talking about the minister sitting before me—and could assist this process and simply let us know the actual timeframe.

So I stand corrected. My advice was the 2^nd from the briefing I had. It may have been the 17^th. It makes little difference in the scheme of things: 17 September, 6 December, 13 November downstairs; today is 27 November. When was cabinet approval granted for the bill we are now receiving?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: At this stage I am not able to provide that information. But certainly given the large amount of legislation that was passed through the House of Assembly in the previous sitting week as well as the large amount of legislation that we have considered here both this week and the previous week—that is my understanding of why we were not able to see this bill in this place sooner.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If we are able to front up here as a crossbench and deliver on your workload in the timeframe we have in the last fortnight or three sitting weeks according to your agenda, then it is not a big ask for one of you to find out the date of cabinet approval. It is not you guys who have had to deliver on that workload; it is the rest of us who have had to work to your agenda to deliver to your timeframe.

So here we are now debating an issue again to your timeframe, and I am sorry but it is not acceptable to say, 'Well, we've had a big workload, and here we are two weeks later, and we just have this bill, and this is the only time we've got.' It is a simple question, one question: when did cabinet approve the bill that we are debating this evening? It is a simple question that requires a simple answer, and frankly, if nobody listening to this debate is able to provide that answer, then you do not deserve to progress this bill tonight.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: At this stage, all I can say is I certainly note the concerns and the understandable frustration that is being exhibited here tonight. I will certainly pass that on very clearly to the minister in the other place.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I really appreciate the minister giving that undertaking. To inform the advice that she provides to the minister, I think it is really important that members of the government understand the significant pressure that their agenda places in particular on crossbench members, just to support the comments made by the Hon. Connie Bonaros because I think they are important. I know all members of this chamber work hard—there is no question about that—but it is very challenging for small teams to be able to engage with the volume of legislation that we have been required to engage with recently.

I know certainly for my part, donations reform has taken up a huge amount of time, along with the electoral reform agenda of the government and also looking at retirement villages and the plethora of other things that have needed to be done under a strict timeframe. To throw in another bill with no notice, with no time for me to receive a briefing, I think is very unfair. It has made it very difficult for us to be able to plan appropriately and get our heads around it. I understand this decision might have been made in September, but there have been a few months that have passed.

Why did the minister not pick up the phone to the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the opposition, the Greens, and say, 'This bill is coming down the line. Here are some of the issues that you might want to look at. I am going to arrange with my team to help you get up to speed so that we can help you consider this, because we need to get it done by the end of the year and we know that you have all of these other bills coming down the line.' Why are we not being extended that courtesy when we are dealing with complex issues like this? Trying to go through this process now at midnight really is disrespectful, I think, to members of this chamber, the work that we do and the people we represent.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think that the points are well made by the Hon. Mr Simms and the Hon. Ms Bonaros and by others in the chamber yesterday. As I have said, I have made the undertaking to convey those sentiments to the minister in the other place.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Will it become a common practice for the minister to introduce bills in the House of Assembly on the same day as the Legislative Council, and is this acceptable or should Minister Koutsantonis offer an apology to this chamber?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I did outline a little bit earlier that it actually was not the same day. The date that it was introduced into the other place was sooner than yesterday, but I certainly take on board the fact that the debate in the other place was only yesterday. I think everyone would agree that the ideal is to enable plenty of time for consideration of bills. I do not think that is under dispute. Certainly, that would be the preferred approach always.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: What industry consultation has occurred on this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that consultation for the exposure bill and rules package occurred between 26 June and 24 July 2024. Stakeholders provided submissions, covering generators, network service providers and clean energy investors as well as other interested parties.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I just want to put on the record my support and echo the sentiments of the crossbench about the enormous difficulty of coping with the volume of legislation that has been thrown at us recently and the inability to do, I feel, my own due diligence in really grappling with the volume of legislation in a small team.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. That is again well noted.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 6) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (00:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.