HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTRICITY (FEED-IN SCHEME—RESIDENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEMS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be disagreed to.

I wish to explain briefly the purposes for moving that motion. First, I am somewhat mystified that these amendments won the support of the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council. I am sure there was a reason for that, but I do not believe that the amendments were supported here by the Liberal Party and I cannot imagine why they would support them. They are very ill thought out amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell in another place. They will have the purpose, if pursued by the Legislative Council, of destroying the opportunity for the first feed-in law in Australia.

Perhaps that is the motivation of the Liberal Party but, make no mistake, these amendments are so unacceptable and, in some cases, so unworkable that we would have no option but to oppose them, which will result in the bill not proceeding. So, the Greens who pride themselves, as I understand it, on protecting the environment will have cut off the environment's nose to spite its face by declining to introduce the first feed-in law in Australia.

I will deal briefly with the Democrat amendments supported by the Liberals in another place. The first is to extend the scheme to include small business customers. There is a number of problems about all these amendments. One is that we have consulted industry about them and we like to keep faith on the indications of what we have done but, even more importantly, the class to which they wish to extend the bill is not a class that is identified by ETSA. It would require an extraordinary administrative cost to create a new class and determine who is in it.

We believe it really would make the administrative costs a burden that the scheme should not be required to pay. Of course, we all recognise—and it was part of the debate—that the cost of the scheme is borne by all energy users. As we explained, it was a scheme that was originally addressed to residential customers, and that remains the government's position.

There are a number of amendments that deal with that, but another amendment increases the amount paid per kilowatt hour from 44¢ to $1. Again, I do not understand how supporting this in the Upper House is consistent with the approach of the Liberal Party in this place; however, the shadow minister can explain that. We believe that the 44¢ rate set is quite reasonable for a number of reasons. First, it complements a capital subsidy that already exists at the commonwealth level, so comparisons that the Greens have made with the German feed-in scheme, which relies entirely on the feed-in scheme, are simply not valid. The other issue relating to a comparison between Germany and Australia is that there will be a lot more sunlight falling on solar panels in South Australia than there will be in Germany, so you will get a higher return.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It did; amendment No. 8. Sorry; you may be right and it did not get up. Well, I am glad you did not support that one. I may have misunderstood the advice I was given; I now understand the Liberal Party's position and it is consistent.

However, I do not understand why the Liberal Party has agreed to a 20-year time period for this bill. Even though the commonwealth government has been very slow to move on greenhouse emissions, we believe there will be a national scheme within 5 years—which we have always called for—to deal with carbon emissions, and we also believe that that is an appropriate time period to see how this bill works. It may be that this will be kept, but in 5 years it will be a decision for the government of the day. It is an entirely appropriate period of review: 20 years is not an appropriate period of review.

Again, I stress that industry participants were consulted on the nature of this bill and, having consulted on 5 years, I do not think it is appropriate to go to 20 years. I fail to understand the logic. I mean, if you are going to have a scheme you might as well have it forever and not have a period on it because 20 years is a very long time—and who knows what the energy world will look like in 20 years.

I apologise to my colleague for misleading the committee regarding the attitude of the Liberal Party on the feed-in law, but the amendments by the Greens are either administratively unworkable or go so far away from the intention of the scheme as to make it unworkable. Make no mistake—and I signal this to the Legislative Council—if those amendments are insisted upon all that will be achieved is the defeat of the first feed-in law in Australia.

Mr WILLIAMS: That was quite an amusing contribution from the minister. I recall recently that the minister and I were debating an electricity issue and the minister berated me for not doing my homework and not being all over the issue; yet here we have several pages of amendments and the minister presumed that all the amendments of the Hon. Mark Parnell in another place got up, when indeed they did not. It is amusing that the minister started off by suggesting that he could not understand why the Liberal Party would have supported such amendments when, in fact, I do not think we supported the particular one he was talking about (and on which he was in error) at all. That is my understanding. I will talk about the amendments we have before us and bring to the committee the reasons why the Liberal Party supported some of the amendments moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell in the other place.

I was under the impression, as was the opposition, that what is driving this bill is a want to have people invest in photovoltaic cells for two reasons. One reason is that it will have some impact on the greenhouse emissions; the other reason is that it will have some impact on our electricity generation and distribution system such that it may allow us to reduce the burden at peak demand and therefore reduce the cost to all consumers, thereby reducing the cost to the state, in very general terms, of supplementing both distribution and generation assets to meet peak demand.

The first amendment moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell and most of the amendments, apart from amendments Nos 1 through to 15, are aimed at achieving one thing, and that is to extend the scheme from domestic consumers to small business consumers. However, the minister has not convinced me that that is not in the spirit of what the scheme is about, that is, extending the availability of this scheme beyond domestic consumers to commercial consumers. I think that is exactly what the scheme is designed to do; that is, it is designed to increase the installation of small photovoltaic generation systems, to reduce greenhouse gas and to reduce the burden, particularly at times of peak demand. That is why the opposition supported the amendment in the other place, that is, because it actually does more than what the government intended with regard to encouraging more people to put in photovoltaic cells.

The minister did make the point that, administratively, this is very difficult because these are not seen as a separate class and so are not easily identifiable, and it is not so easy, I guess, to do the paperwork. I accept that that is possibly the case. I am not sure that I accept fully that it is impossible for—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes. I think the minister's own expectation is that the actual take-up of the opportunity to install photovoltaic cells will be quite small in the domestic sector, and I would expect that it would also be quite small in the commercial sector or the small business sector. I say to the minister that I am not yet convinced that, in the administration of the scheme, it would be overly costly if we had an arrangement whereby a small business operator was obliged to apply to be part of the scheme and prove that they, in fact, met the conditions contained in the bill, if this amendment is accepted by the government; that is, that they are a small business and, obviously, that they had installed the photovoltaic cells and the appropriate metering and everything so that it could be monitored.

I am not convinced that that would be at a huge cost to the scheme, to be quite honest. I am a realist; I know the government has the numbers here, with or without the opposition's support, but I will need—and I think the opposition will need—more information from the minister and from the government than what has been provided so far in the debate to convince us not to support this amendment when, obviously, it will go back to the upper house.

With regard to amendment No. 16 from the Legislative Council, I can see no reason whatsoever for the government not to support this. Even with the benefit of the feed-in scheme and the return of the electricity to the network by somebody who has installed a small photovoltaic system, I understand that the payback period—from memory, I think it was suggested that it would probably be somewhere between 17 and 20-odd years—will still be very lengthy.

To be quite honest, I fail to understand how the government expects this scheme to encourage—I will just talk about domestic consumers at this stage—domestic consumers to be more encouraged because of the scheme when they understand that the benefit that they are going to get will only last for five years. I would have thought that if you ask a householder to go out and expend a large sum of money to put in a photovoltaic system, and bearing in mind that the commonwealth government—the government that the Labor Party claims is doing nothing towards greenhouse gas emissions and the abatement of global warming, is giving a rebate of, I think, $8,000—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: —to residential customers—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: We are talking about the other amendment now, minister. This government, in its magnanimity, is saying, 'We will make sure that the electricity consumers pay a rebate to those who put it in.' So, the government itself is not taking any tax revenue and putting it towards this scheme. The other mealy-mouthed part of this is that the government is saying, 'We expect people to make a decision, because we're going to give them this encouragement,' but the encouragement will only last for five years, when the payback period is actually much more than that: at least three times, possibly four times more. I can see no reason at all why the government cannot accept this particular amendment.

One thing on which I agree with the minister—and I think it is probably pretty obvious to anybody who has any understanding of the energy market and where we may be going over the next period—is that, as we go forward, we will see dramatic changes in the viability of these systems, the types of generators we use and the method of distribution. There will be massive changes. I believe that this sort of legislation will regularly come back to this parliament for updating, amending and upgrading—a whole range of reasons.

I do not see the problem with having a 20-year period which further reflects the payback period. I cannot see any downside to it; there is no administrative problem. It actually fulfils the object of the bill; that is, to give encouragement to domestic consumers to invest notwithstanding the long payback period. This will give the added surety that it is the intention of this parliament that they will continue to receive the benefit for 20 years, rather than five.

I will remind the house of my cynicism when the bill first came into this place and when we debated it last time. I am very cynical about the benefit that many people will get from this because, in reality, the net input from a photovoltaic system here in South Australia into the network is very small. My information is that the average household uses something like 2 kilowatts during daylight hours and the average generation capacity of these systems is about 1.5 kilowatts.

So, the reality is that a very marginal amount of electricity will be put back into the system. I have heard no convincing argument at all from the minister as to why the 20-year time frame would be unacceptable to the government. If the minister is going to put the proposition that the bill will fail if the upper house insists on the 20 years, not only is he being very petty but he is looking for excuses not to proceed with the bill.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: First, it is really strange that the opposition spokesperson should support an amendment which requires an extension to business customers, when he has not actually been onto his commonwealth counterparts to suggest that they should do it. The scheme is designed around complementing a capital contribution from the commonwealth. That capital contribution is not made to small-business customers: it is made to residential customers.

It is two-faced to be in here criticising the government for its approach—exactly the same one as the commonwealth has—but, of course, talking about what a wonderful government it is. There is just a trace of mealy-mouthed criticism of us, with the opposition wanting to amend our scheme because it apparently has the same failing as the commonwealth scheme has. The scheme is designed around residential customers, as is the commonwealth scheme, and it is designed around complementing the capital contribution from the commonwealth.

To impose it on small business, the problem is that that has to be a category. ETSA, which is responsible for this scheme, has to create a category. Because there is no capital contribution, what we will do is get all of the administrative costs—the capacity to do it—and in this case you are right: you have had very little uptake because it is not complemented by the commonwealth scheme. So, what you will do is make people spend money for absolutely no point whatsoever.

To come back to the 20 years: what we have said is that finally it is clear that regardless of who wins the federal government there will be, in five years' time, a completely different way of dealing with carbon emissions. It may well be that that way of dealing with carbon emissions provides a reward to those who have photovoltaic panels that exceed this; it may not. The simple intention, and what we have said to industry, is that if that is the case then we will not need this any more. But I have absolutely no doubt that if, God forbid, we did need these schemes in five years time parliament would renew it, because parliaments are very slow, once they have given something, to take it away.

It would, I think, remove the point of having any sunset clause at all to make it 20 years: why don't you just be honest and take it out? Goodness me, in 20 years I do not expect—unless it is Graham Gunn—that any of the same faces will be in here. Gunny might still be here: he is pretty hard to get rid of!

So, it makes no sense. Make no mistake, we have said all along that states have schemes because the commonwealth has failed to step up to the mark on emissions trading and greenhouse emissions. It may well be that the good thing will happen and the last Liberal government in Australia gets its marching orders on Saturday, and we may well have a much better approach from a federal government; that is why we believe it should be five years. Above all, the reason we will not accept it is that this scheme was discussed with industry. It was a very lengthy consultation process (about a year) with industry to come up with this. Having done a year of consultation, we will keep faith with the industry.

All I say to the opposition is I know they are cynical about this bill and this strikes me as being a completely cynical way of knocking it off. You did not have the courage to oppose it, so you have found a cynical way of knocking it off. You know that we will not accept it. You have been told; it has been made clear. We have tried to talk to you and give you briefings that, in turn, we have not been able to talk to you about. We have not been able to elicit your position because, in my view, this is a completely cynical way for the Liberal Party to knock off the first feed-in law in Australia. You have made it clear that you are cynical about it; you have made it clear that you do not like it. You only voted for it because you were too embarrassed not to and now you have found a way to knock it off.

Be that as it may, we will be making sure that people know about that because I refute the notion that the Liberals are doing this to assist people. Some people in this place, like the member for Mitchell, make genuine contributions on long-held views. But I have to tell members that the contribution of the Liberal Party that it wants to make the feed-in law better is not genuinely based on long-held views. The shadow spokesperson has belled the cat; he has been cynical about this. He would have opposed it if he had the political courage, so he has found a backdoor way of attempting to knock it off. I tell you that we have consulted for a year in industry, it is a five-year scheme on impeccable logic—that is what it is. I hope at least the Greens see through you and do not use your support for their amendments as a backdoor way of knocking off Australia's first feed-in law.

Mr WILLIAMS: That contribution demands a response, and I will give it. I think we are giving this matter more of the house's time than it deserves at this stage. Certainly, if the minister thinks that by imposing a sunset clause of 20 years, rather than a sunset of five years, it is reason to withdraw the bill altogether and not have the scheme and, therefore, that would be the Liberal Party's fault, I think it shows that the minister is in cloud cuckoo land. The reality is—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: And he is right; none of us will be here in 20 years' time and, as I said, I am absolutely certain that this parliament would have to review this matter as time goes on. I would be surprised if this piece of legislation is not back in the parliament within the five years. I expect that it may well be. I am arguing this matter to express my cynicism at what the minister is actually trying to achieve when he says and acknowledges, and when the government knows, that the payback period for the capital cost of these schemes is extensive. I think that the briefing I got from his officers suggested that it would be between 17 and 20-something years depending on the exact system, so it is extensive. The minister is now arguing that the parliament should have a five-year sunset clause and that, by offering the feed-in rebate over a period of five years, it will change people's minds and encourage people to install a small photovoltaic generator, which I think is nonsense. I cannot for the life of me understand why the minister will not accept the 20 years and get on with it.

An honourable member: He's being difficult to get on with.

Mr WILLIAMS: He is being difficult to get on with. With regard to the other matter, I have said to the minister that I accept there may be a burdensome administrative cost. The minister has not, to my mind, made the case. As I said, the minister will carry the numbers here, and it will go through, but the attitude that the opposition takes in the other place may well be swayed if the minister is able to make a case. He has failed to make it here, and I suggest that he gets out his pencil and does a bit of work because I cannot see for the life of me that, if 20, 100 or even 200 small businesses were encouraged to take up the option, that it would cause a huge administrative cost if they had to put in an application and maybe even put in a return on an annual basis.

The administrative cost would largely fall with the individual small business. But the benefit, if a benefit were to be derived from this scheme, surely would be that more small photovoltaic generators would be operating. That is what the bill is about—trying to encourage people to install these systems. That is the whole basis of this piece of legislation, yet the minister argues, 'We want it to work only at the edges. We don't want to have a real red-hot go at it.'

With regard to his comments about the commonwealth government, it is nice that the Labor energy minister here in South Australia acknowledges that this state government will only follow the lead of the commonwealth Liberal government in relation to greenhouse gas abatement and global warming matters. I wish that they were big enough to put this in their television advertising for the current election campaign. They are certainly not in the business of leading the pack. The minister said, 'We are not going to go down the path of encouraging small business to be involved in putting in photovoltaic generators because the commonwealth hasn't done so. If they won't do it, we won't do it. We'll be followers, not leaders.' Thank you, minister for that acknowledgement.

I will not take any more of the committee's time, but can I say that the opposition is yet to be convinced that it got it wrong in the upper house. I said that we were willing to be swayed by a cogent and compelling argument. We await the minister's response.

Mr HANNA: I speak today on the first amendment, which has come back to the House of Assembly from the Legislative Council.

The CHAIR: The minister moved that all amendments be disagreed to.

Mr HANNA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I speak in relation to the amendments that have come from the Legislative Council to the House of Assembly in relation to the electricity feed-in law. The amendments are, essentially, to include small businesses and to provide them the benefit accorded to residential customers under the original government proposal; and, secondly, to have a 20-year commitment in legislation so that the feed-in benefit to residential customers persists for at least 20 years. It means that those who go to the trouble and capital expense of putting solar panels on their roof know that they will have the benefit of a feed-in return on their investment for at least 20 years.

These are both matters I addressed in my second reading contribution in this place on 26 September this year. Indeed, I referred extensively to the experience in Germany, where they have a remarkably higher take-up of solar panel installation; in fact, the contrast with the Australian experience is absolutely staggering, bearing in mind that there is less sunshine in Germany. I think that last year something like 1,000 times more solar panels were installed in Germany than in Australia.

One of the benefits to German consumers is the guarantee of a 20-year minimum benefit in terms of their feed-in return. I strongly support what the Legislative Council has decided. Good on Mark Parnell of the Greens for moving his amendments, and I am glad that my comrades in the Liberal Party saw fit to support them.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mr HANNA: Even my comrades with beards in the Liberal Party! I am very pleased to have their support today. In my view, the minister has not satisfactorily defended the government's opposition to these amendments.

The minister, as usual, has taken something of a bullying approach to the Liberal opposition, alleging that it is too embarrassed to oppose the amendments. Well, I hope that the government is too embarrassed to oppose the amendments. I hope that the government will see reason once a conference is set up between members of the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council. For those who are unaware, the way it works is that, when the House of Assembly rejects Legislative Council amendments, if the Legislative Council insists on its amendments, what normally happens is that there is a conference of MPs from both of the houses who get together and ultimately decide whether there will be a compromise, whether amendments will be adopted, or whether, in fact, the government will withdraw the bill. It would be shameful if it did that.

The minister said that, if that occurred, the government would blame the Liberals, and the minister would make sure that everyone knows about it; in other words, making sure that everyone knows that it is the fault of the Liberals. It is a piece of government legislation. The government obviously has a majority in the House of Assembly, and if the bill is withdrawn that will rest squarely on the minister's shoulders and on Mike Rann's shoulders. The government has brought forward this legislation, and it is good legislation. The amendments improve it, and it would be to their shame if the legislation did not proceed as a result of the Legislative Council improving it.

I am glad to see that the amendments that I suggested on 26 September in my speech were, in fact, taken up in the upper house. I will see how things progress after the matter is dealt with here today.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I thank the member for Mitchell for his contribution. As I said, while I disagree with him, calling me a bully was rather harsh, given that I have never frightened him in my life—I know that. I doubt that I frighten Mitch very much either, but so be it.

Mr Williams: Not at all.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Not at all. I did not notice a lot of intimidation oozing out of the big farmer over there. I will come back to the point: the unsightly lining up of the Liberal Party with the Greens. I can understand the Greens accepting the support of the Liberal Party—why not? But do not for a moment think that it is done for any genuine purpose, because it would be completely counter to every attitude it has taken to this every step of the way at this level and in Canberra. The other thing that I want to get on the record is that it is the first feed-in law in Australia, and we are the first government to do it. It is a government that already has—

Mr Williams: That's what's important for you, isn't it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Please, you cannot complain about bullying, and try to throw me off with your regressive interjecting. Not only will we be the first government in Australia to have a feed-in law but we already have an outstanding record on greenhouse measures—the best record in Australia—recognised internationally, with the best carbon footprint in mainland Australia. It is so very much like the Greens to actually tackle the people who are doing the job rather than the people who are failing, but that is their attitude. I will come back to the point, and I know that the member for MacKillop says that he is not convinced; I cannot help him with that. I do not think that he will ever allow himself to be convinced, so it is probably a waste of my time trying to do that.

Members should make no mistake: this was the subject of extensive consultation over a year with industry and lots of interested groups. We thought that it was the right balance; it is the right balance. It is our initiative, and if the Legislative Council for various motivations of different members wishes to frustrate this state government introducing the first feed-in law they can do so, but it will be on their heads. We are not going to betray those people, with whom we have consulted for a year, by delivering something entirely different to that which we first proposed. I say to them that if they wish to knock it off, do so.

I have made no secret of the fact that I have a very firm belief that a comprehensive national emissions trading scheme is the answer. I have said this for five years; I have said it at ministerial councils on energy when the commonwealth refused to discuss it, refused to even have it on the agenda, refused to talk to any state minister from any state that wanted to talk about it. Here we go, here is the Liberal Party lining up with the Greens, and here is Labor saying it, because it will allow the market to respond and use the initiative of the market, use the innovation through the market, allow the marketplace to find the right way to respond to a carbon-constrained future.

We will not find a solution unless the market has a reason to find a solution. It is strange that a Labor person is over here talking about what I would have thought to be Economics 101 for the Liberals, but that is the primary reason that we believe five years is correct. We believe that there will be a carbon trading market, and we want to see how it works. We want to see what solutions are found by the marketplace, because that is where the big ticket items will be found. That does not mean that we will resile from the promotion of green energy.

Can I just point out that, for all the criticism we get, South Australia has something like half the wind generation in Australia, with more being built; we have more photovoltaic cells than anyone else; we have the first feed-in law but, of course, that is not good enough for some people. The fact is that we sought to strike a balance. If the Liberal party does not accept that balance there is not much we can do about it. But, make no mistake about it: if the Legislative Council wants to cut off the environment's nose to spite its face, it can insist upon amendments that were never consulted about and are unacceptable to the government.

Mr WILLIAMS: I think that was a rare moment of candour from the minister and we got to the nub of what this bill is about. The minister is arguing now that we should pass it, as he would have us pass it, because this will give the first feed-in law in Australia; this will be the first government in Australia. I think I addressed this matter in my second reading contribution; that is the driver of this piece of legislation. It is not (and the minister has convinced me now that he has let the cat out of the bag) about encouraging people to put in photovoltaic cells and generating schemes: it is about getting that headline: 'We are the first to do this and we are the first to do that.'

I absolutely agree with the minister when he says that he expects that there will be a carbon trading market in Australia within five years. I totally agree with that; I do not reject that at all. Both the major parties in the upcoming federal election have committed to going down that path, but that does not prevent us from implementing a measure now which goes well beyond that, because we are not tying the hands of parliament to come back and review it in a few years. The reality is that, time and time again, our expectations—although they are often met—of meeting deadlines or dates are often pushed out well beyond when we would expect.

We all expect that there will be a carbon trading system up and operating by 2013. The reality is that, in the world we live in, it may not get up until 2014; it may not be up and running until 2015. After 10 years in this place, I am even more cynical about the claim that something is going to happen in two or three years and that it is going to meet its deadline. My experience is that very few of the things that we set out to do in this place, in fact, meet their deadline. Often they are pushed out a little beyond that.

I reiterate that I do not think the amendment, which puts a 20-year life into this bill rather than a five-year life, is a show stopper. The minister obviously disagrees. He thinks that is a show stopper. Maybe the minister can see even a bigger headline by blaming someone else, because he is not doing very much beyond being a facilitator here. All he is doing is being a facilitator: he is not making any commitments on behalf of his government. All he is doing is being a facilitator and a regulator and putting obligations on third parties.

I am sure he is weighing up in his mind, 'Do I get the biggest headline by saying that we are the first to get a feed-in law in Australia?' We are the first government in this broader jurisdiction to have achieved this. Or will he get the bigger headline by blaming the Liberal Party? I suspect that he is weighing up the relative merits of those two propositions. I am sure—because the minister does not mind a stoush—that the prospect of being able to blame the Liberal Party is weighing fairly heavy in his calculations. I reiterate that I am still not convinced of the problems the minister would have us believe these amendments cause.

I want to mention another matter the minister raised when he talked about wind power in South Australia. Yes, we are very fortunate in South Australia that we have had a significant investment, and all from the private sector. The minister knows full well that the decisions to build the Starfish Hill facility were taken whilst we were in government.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: You may well. The minister knows full well that the decisions to build the wind farms in my electorate by Babcock & Brown Wind Partners were well underway before he came to power. He knows that probably all the wind farms that have now been established in South Australia would have been established no matter who was in government. There are two reasons they have been established in South Australia and not in New South Wales. One reason is that South Australia has a very good wind resource. Western Australia has a very good wind resource but it is not connected to the national grid, so that causes some limitation in Western Australia.

South Australia is connected to the national grid, and we have a very good wind resource at least as good if not better than any of the other states. The other reason is that we have encouraged private investment in electricity generation in South Australia. I am sure that not even this minister will claim that that was his doing, because it was not. However, it is one of the large reasons why we have such a huge investment not only in wind power but also in electricity generation per se here in South Australia.

The minister should look at what his government will do to encourage investment in baseload in South Australia because that is potentially a looming problem into the future. The minister and his government may well overcome that problem by continuing to stifle the economy, and the demand may not grow as it no doubt should, but that is something the minister might see as one way of getting out of the problem that is looming in the energy area.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Given that the contribution of the opposition is now going off into absolute fantasy, I think we had better cut it short and get the bill over with.

The committee divided on the motion:

AYES (27)

Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Ciccarello, V.
Conlon, P.F. (teller) Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, T. Lomax-Smith, J.D.
Maywald, K.A. McEwen, R.J. O'Brien, M.F.
Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G. Rann, M.D.
Rau, J.R. Simmons, L.A. Snelling, J.J.
Stevens, L. White, P.L. Wright, M.J.

NOES (15)

Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F. Goldsworthy, M.R.
Griffiths, S.P. Hanna, K. (teller) Kerin, R.G.
McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S. Penfold, E.M.
Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M.
Such, R.B. Venning, I.H. Williams, M.R.

PAIRS (4)

Weatherill, J.W. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
Rankine, J.M. Gunn, G.M.


Majority of 12 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT