HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-10-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Energy Policy

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for the Arts) (15:36): I move, pursuant to order:

That this house—

1. Notes the Leader of the Opposition's comments on 10 October that he hopes 'that the next election is a referendum on energy policy here in South Australia'.

2. Recognises that the South Australian government's plan will deliver more self-reliance and support clean, affordable and reliable energy, while the Liberal Party's so-called energy solution returns to their failed policy of privatisation and is about reducing South Australia's self-reliance.

3. Calls on the Leader of the Opposition to phone back all South Australians and explain his previously promised $302 annual saving is actually only a $60 to $70 saving and in five years' time.

4. Recognises that the commonwealth government's energy policy abandons renewable energy, caters to vested interests, and the initial forecast savings of $115 per annum may only deliver savings of $25 in three years' time.

We accept the challenge of the next state election being a referendum on our competing energy policies, and the truth—

The SPEAKER: We have to limit debate, so you need to move that the time allotted for the debate be one hour.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I move:

That the time allotted for the debate be one hour.

Motion carried.

We accept the challenge of the next state election being a referendum on energy policy and, indeed, on renewable energy policy. Make no mistake, that is exactly how it will be constructed for political purposes around this nation. The truth is that this government has been bold in its pursuit of renewable energy and it has done that in the state's interest, it has done that in the national interest and it has done that in responding to our international obligations to provide a cleaner energy system.

In a very real sense, this next election will be warranted by those people who actually consider these political matters. They will warrant the outcome of this election as being a referendum on renewable energy. Make no mistake about it: the forces that are gathering against the renewable energy push in this country—the same forces that are applying their efforts on the federal caucus—those same efforts, those same political forces, will warrant the outcome of this election and use it against other jurisdictions as a warning about pushing too hard into renewable energy if we are not successful at the next state election. Make no mistake about that; that is exactly what they will do with it.

This is a coal lobby that has its reach deep into the political processes around this nation. You only need to realise that one of the Minerals Council representatives is sitting in the Prime Minister's office advising him on these matters. You only need to realise that the money they had collected that was meant to be applied for research efforts is now being applied largely for public relations efforts. They are running a full court public relations exercise to protect their vested interests. That is the nature of the coal lobby in this country.

There are lots of people who have sunk many, many hundreds of millions of dollars in their existing assets and they want to continue to keep those assets and get a return and make money. That is what this debate is about: it has always been about money.

Those vested interests, those powerful interests that influence the public policy debate in this country, have reached deeply into the federal Coalition. Of course, they have reached deeply into the federal Coalition, and the federal Coalition have reached out and grabbed the Leader of the Opposition. There is no more stark example of that than when all the various Liberal leaders around the nation simultaneously came up with the same policy of abolishing their state-based renewable energy targets. There are only two explanations for that: either it is a colossal coincidence or they were all rung up and gathered up by the federal Liberal Party and asked to announce this on the same day.

The truth is that we have a Leader of the Opposition here in South Australia who is dictated to and governed by Canberra. The imperatives of Canberra are the survival of the Prime Minister because he has his slender majority and he has a leadership which is hanging by a thread, and he is in the thrall of the coal interests. Because he is in the thrall of the coal interests, he then reaches back into South Australia and whistles up the Leader of the Opposition and says, 'You must also toe the line in relation to those coal interests'. This is what is happening here in South Australian politics.

So accept that the next election is a referendum on the future of renewable energy. We are content to be judged about those matters because renewable energy represents the best opportunity for cheaper electricity, drawing as it does on the renewable sources of the sun, the wind and other technologies. It also offers the promise of reliable electricity as we use those new storage technologies—our batteries, solar thermal, other forms of storage technologies—and, of course, it is clean. It gives you the capacity to provide an energy system that runs a secure, affordable but clean energy system that not only provides the opportunity to respond to our international obligations to reduce our carbon emissions but does so in a way that creates the jobs of the future.

This is about South Australia anticipating and realising that the future lies in renewable energy and grasping the opportunity and creating the jobs of the future. What more powerful example than the Port Augusta movement, the Port Augusta power station? The Port Augusta community made the decision well before Northern closed that they wanted to get out of the coal-fired power station because they could see the future. Joy Baluch was campaigning for the end of that coal-fired power station and a transition to a clean renewable energy future.

That community in a far-sighted way sought to promote the technologies of the future, the solar thermal plant which is now being supported by this government, in an extraordinary victory for that community and a remarkable first and important outcome from Our Energy Plan, which was to use our procurement, to put it out to the market, to ask people to bid for a secure, reliable, affordable power, and we got the world's largest solar thermal plant there in Port Augusta offering opportunities and jobs for the people of Port Augusta. Many of them will be jobs that could well go to people who worked in the former power station because they require the same sorts of skills and capabilities to run the turbines that will now be driven by the power of the sun instead of by burning fossil fuels. This represents the future.

What we have at a national level is a federal government that essentially wants to slow down our progression to that future. Do you seriously believe that Malcolm Turnbull, but for the coal interests in his own caucus and but for Pauline Hanson and but for Tony Abbott, would be doing this? Just ask yourself that question. Would he be running this policy that he does not believe in but for those political forces? Of course not. He is doing this because he is beholden to those interests. You only need see the progression of the debate to see the way in which the debate has emerged.

First, we had the emissions trading scheme, the ETS. No, they did not want that. That looked too much like promoting renewable energy. Then they did not want the EIS, the emissions intensity scheme, because that looked too much like a price on carbon. Then they did not want the clean energy target because that sounded too much like promoting renewable energy or a price on carbon.

Now they are coming up with the NEG because they cannot bear to use the word 'clean' except in connection with the word 'coal'. Talk about ideology! This is a party that is utterly committed to an ideological position in favour of coal. In fact, perhaps elevating it to the status of ideology does them too much of a favour. It is not an ideology: it is just craven capitulation to vested interests. And vested interests, rather than the public interest, is what is being competed for in this debate.

We are seeing the Leader of the Opposition demonstrate through his contribution that he is no more or less than utterly beholden to the federal Liberal Party. His key announcement before the complete mess he made of it last week was to abolish the state-based renewable energy target—our 50 per cent renewable energy target, of which we are proud and which has sent an investment signal to the world that South Australia is open for renewable energy. That is the centrepiece of the Leader of the Opposition's policy.

There is another centrepiece of the Leader of the Opposition's policy and that is that he wants to return to the question of privatisation. He wants to return to that same failed policy that led to the privatisation of ETSA, which has put us in the position we are in now. The South Australian energy plan we have put in place has at its heart one single objective and that is taking charge of our energy future. It recognises that essential services belong in public hands. It re-establishes our promise to establish the E&WS, the energy and water services department, to house our new publicly owned power plant that will secure our energy future here in South Australia.

The Leader of the Opposition, in a return to the policies of the past, puts his faith in the market and wishes to ask the private sector to assist us in relation to our energy future. We are going to put this in public hands. We are going to make sure that it is legislatively protected because we are committed above all to standing up for South Australia. We are committed to standing up for South Australia against vested interests, we are committed to standing up for South Australia against Canberra when it acts against our interests and most of all we are committed to standing up for the people of South Australia to make sure they have control of their energy future.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:47): I rise to speak on this motion, which the Premier has brought before the house today. What a stunt! What a stunt from an absolutely hopeless, morally bankrupt, hypocritical government—the worst government in the history of the state led by the worst premier in the history of the state. This Premier and this government stand condemned on so many metrics right across South Australia at the moment, but the most important failure that they have perpetrated against the people of South Australia and inflicted on the people of South Australia is their massive comprehensive failure in terms of energy.

Their ideological obsession with intermittent renewable energy, the massive experiment that the Premier himself heralded, has plunged South Australia into a catastrophic situation with the highest energy prices and the least reliable grid in the entire country. That is the legacy of this Labor Party's energy policy, led by the Treasurer of this state for the last six years. South Australia has been in a very difficult situation since Labor came to power in 2002.

Let's just revisit where South Australia was in terms of energy costs and prices in South Australia when Labor came to power in 2002, because you have just heard it from the Premier. He makes it very clear to the people of South Australia that privatisation is what has driven up energy prices in South Australia. Let's just see if there is any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Premier's suggestion today is true. We already know that the ABC fact-checking program has completely ruled this out, but let's look at what the wholesale prices of South Australia were when this government came to power back in 2002.

In 2001-02, the wholesale price for energy in South Australia was $34 per megawatt hour. How does that compare with the rest of the states at that time? Let us have a look. Victoria was $33, so Victoria was lower. It was $33, and we were $34. New South Wales was $38, so we were lower than New South Wales. Queensland was $38. We were lower than Queensland, we were lower than New South Wales and we were on par with the people of Victoria when the Labor Party came to power in 2002. So much for the lie being perpetrated by those opposite, this failed Labor government, that somehow privatisation of the energy generators in South Australia led to this very high cost of energy, which they have inflicted upon the people of South Australia.

We now have prices in South Australia that are double those in Victoria, 50 per cent higher than New South Wales and significantly higher than other states around Australia, and there is only one reason—there is only one reason for this—and that is the mess, the energy mess, the pain, that this government has inflicted upon the people of South Australia. For many years, in fact, many decades, for more than 50 years, South Australia had affordable and reliable base load energy in this state, which was provided by Leigh Creek coal to the Northern power station at Port Augusta. That provided affordable and reliable base load power, which we enjoyed for many decades.

Unfortunately, those opposite do not like coal, but the situation is really that they do not like South Australians having affordable, reliable energy, which has driven the prosperity of our state for so long. They undermined the viability of this critical piece of energy infrastructure in South Australia. They went open slather with intermittent renewable energy approvals with no regard whatsoever to what this would do for either the price or the stability of our grid. We now all know the consequences. They undermined the viability and the Northern power station was forced to close. We begged the government to reconsider this situation, to keep it there to manage the transition through to renewable energy, and the government said no.

They were driven by ideology, not what was in the best interest of the people of South Australia. Now we know the situation that we have. If you do not accept what I have to say about it, I think it would be very interesting to see what some other prominent people have said about the situation we have in South Australia. In particular, I read what the CEO of AEMO said just yesterday. These are the words of Audrey Zibelman and I quote:

The level of investment in renewables was responsible for power system instability.

What we've discovered through our experience in South Australia is when you get to certain levels of renewable intermittent generation, the system itself becomes less stable.

That is what Audrey Zibelman from AEMO said yesterday. We have heard nothing from those opposite about the comments that were made yesterday, but this was not the first time that the government was warned. In fact, we have prosecuted multiple warnings in this very chamber over the last three years to this ignorant government about the potential catastrophic effects of undermining the viability of the Northern power station, removing that from our grid before base load or storage were in place.

The government ignored all those warnings. In fact, they even ignored the warning that came to them and to this parliament from Lew Owens 12 years ago. Labor cannot get away from this fact. They have been warned repeatedly about where their policies were taking the people of South Australia and at every single opportunity they have ignored it. Back in 2002, Labor themselves said that we need to have greater interconnectivity with the National Electricity Market. In fact, one of the ironclad promises that was made to the people of South Australia in the lead-up to the 2002 election was that we were going to have another interconnector with New South Wales.

The question is: where is that interconnector? This government loves to blame other people, but they have in fact been in the driving seat in South Australia for almost 16 years. They have had ample opportunity to put that interconnector in place. If that interconnector were in place, perhaps we could have weathered some of the storms we have had in terms of energy in South Australia in recent times with the removal of the base load generation at Port Augusta. Of course, increased interconnection would have increased the security of supply and kept downward pressure on prices, but Labor never did it.

What we have had in South Australia ever since is soaring energy prices, a very unreliable grid, and now the people of South Australia are going to have to foot the bill. It was interesting, was it not, last year when we had the statewide blackout which put South Australia on the international stage for all the wrong reasons? We were on the international stage because of the statewide blackout in South Australia. The minister stood up in this parliament and said, 'As it turns out, our system in South Australia has been operating exactly as it was designed to.'

This should have been a bit of a warning sign that he had no idea what he was talking about. He said it was responding exactly the way it was meant to. In fact, he often stood up in this very chamber and boasted that South Australia was the lead legislative jurisdiction for the national market. He boasted about the pathfinding work that was done in South Australia and that our system responded exactly as it was meant to. Well, fast-forward. After the statewide blackout, I think we had four or five further blackouts in South Australia until the government was forced to say, 'Actually, the system is not working as it was designed; it is a complete and utter catastrophe.'

Now—are you ready for this?—we are going to have to spend half a billion dollars fixing the mess that those people opposite put in place. What a complete mess. What is the centre point of their fix? The centre point is to have diesel generators dotted around South Australia to basically ensure that we can keep the lights on. This government, led by this Premier, which pretends to the people of South Australia that they care about the environment, is now authorising the expenditure of more than $100 million just to get us through this summer—$100 million of expenditure on diesel generators.

This should make those people who have sat in the Labor Party for all these years cringe. Their government is spending more than $100 million of our taxpayer money on diesel generators to prop up their failed system—the system that they designed and the system that they inflicted upon the people of South Australia. Every member opposite should hang their head in shame. By contrast, the Liberal Party in South Australia has been working extraordinarily hard to protect those people who have been failed by this government.

Let's just have a look at some of the magnitude of this failure, which was mentioned in this chamber only yesterday. The number of South Australian electricity consumers on hardship programs for payments of power bills has doubled over the last four years to more than 12,500. There are 12,500 people on hardship payments because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills in this state. We heard in recent days from Foodbank SA that families who are really struggling to make ends meet have to decide whether they keep the energy on or whether they feed their kids.

South Australia—the once great, proud state—has been brought to its knees by this government with their ideologically driven energy policies which are crippling family household budgets and crippling employment. The next generation is completely and utterly giving up hope that this government is ever going to get it right in terms of energy in South Australia. In 2012, the minister stood up in this parliament—and in fact I think he went broadly into the public—and said that he was going to bring energy prices down by 9.1 per cent. Can you remember that one? He said that he was going to bring energy prices down by 9.1 per cent.

So what has happened since then? I will tell you what has happened since then. The average weighted spot prices have soared by a massive 66 per cent, so he only got it slightly wrong. He only got it slightly wrong. He said it was going to go down by 9.1 per cent; it actually went up by 66.1 per cent. He missed it by that much. This is how hopeless he is, yet he stands in this chamber—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is called to order.

Mr MARSHALL: —pretending that this government has a plan and a solution for the people of South Australia. Since the government announced its latest energy policy—and let's be quite serious here: it has moved around quite a bit since March; there have been a lot of changes to what was announced in March—since this Labor government announced their latest version of the energy policy in March this year, prices in this state have gone up 18 to 20 per cent. So, you see, it is really not working.

The government has failed to provide any useful modelling whatsoever. After spending, I think, more than a million dollars with their consultant, who looked at their energy policy before it was announced, the best I think they could get him to sign off on was to say that this could put downward pressure on prices in South Australia into the future. By contrast, what we have done, sir, which I am sure you will be appreciative of, is let our plans stand up to independent scrutiny. We put our plans, our model and our settings to the independent consulting firm ACIL Allen, which modelled what the likely implication of our policy settings would be on the wholesale price in South Australia.

Let me tell you that last financial year the average wholesale rate of energy in South Australia was in excess of $109 per megawatt hour. What the ACIL Allen modelling showed was that the Liberal Party's policies, together with what was happening generally in the market, would bring that down to below $48 per megawatt hour. This is our commitment. We have a plan, a real plan, independently modelled, to bring prices down in South Australia because we care about the people of South Australia and because we want the people of South Australia to do well.

The Hon. C.J. Picton: Sixty or 300?

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Emergency Services is called to order.

Mr MARSHALL: It is interesting that the Minister for Emergency Services is piping up. He has concerns. He has concerns about people living in his electorate who are telling him, I am sure, like they are telling us and pretty much every single person in this room, that energy prices in this state are sky high. What he cannot tell the people in his area—

Ms Vlahos interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Taylor is called to order.

Mr MARSHALL: —is how Labor can bring them down. Why? Because they have not done the work. They have not done the work to model up whether or not their policies will bring down costs in South Australia. As part of their plan, they have this very important component called an energy security target. This was meant to come into place on 1 July, so we were very interested to see what impact the energy security target would have on price. Did it come in on 1 July? No. Did the government revise their position? Yes. Was it going to come in in 2018? Yes. Is it now still going to come in in 2018? No. What is the latest time for it to come in?

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: 2020.

Mr MARSHALL: 2020. The year 2020 is when one of the critical areas of the government's energy strategy will come into place. I will tell you one thing: time is up. The people of South Australia are sick to death of this hopeless government's mismanagement of a critical function like energy.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: They might be, but they don't trust you to fix it. They are going to Xenophon.

Mr MARSHALL: The hypocrisy from those opposite is absolutely—

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland is warned.

Mr MARSHALL: —mouth-watering. At every single opportunity, they like to throw rocks, throw stones and throw dirt at people other than themselves—the federal government, the utilities, the state opposition, anybody who will speak out against their haphazard, disorganised plan. Let me tell you that the people of South Australia have an opportunity, and that comes on 17 March next year. I hope that this is unequivocally a referendum on energy strategy for this state going forward because we have been working to do what we can to drive down prices in South Australia and to provide a secure and reliable energy strategy, because the Liberal Party, those people on this side of the house, want to see this state get ahead.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (16:03): That was remarkable. The opposition released their energy plan last week. The Leader of the Opposition has been on his feet for, I think, over 20 minutes and he did not mention it. Such is his confidence in his plan that he does not mention it. Such is his confidence in his deliberations on what is right for South Australia that he does not mention it.

There is nothing more humiliating than releasing an energy policy where the do-nothing option gives you a bigger benefit than the policy you announced. How humiliating would it have been in the shadow cabinet when that policy was being debated and the shadow minister and the leader were attempting to convince their colleagues that this was the right thing for South Australia?

They have done the independent analysis by ACIL Allen. They showed this independent analysis and told their colleagues, 'We think you can save $300.' Most of it, of course, is in the do-nothing option. Imagine the humiliation. But, no, not this group, not this opposition. I have to say that if I ever said publicly on camera by accident, 'At the election, please vote Liberal,' I do not know if I could show my face again, but such is the front of the Leader of the Opposition that when he tells his constituents, his potential voters—

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide is interjecting out of her seat and is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —the people of South Australia, that on the Saturday of the upcoming election of 2014, 'Vote for the people I have been campaigning against for the last 33 days.' It was humiliating. Then, after the most recent federal budget, he did it again.

But the most humiliating part for the Leader of the Opposition was calling South Australians with a recorded message that said, 'Our energy plan, the Liberal Party's energy plan, will deliver you $300 in savings,' and the next day, at a press conference at an organisation that distributes solar panels and batteries, the George Washington of the Liberal Party, the man who cannot tell a lie, tells his leader live on TV, 'Actually, it's only $70, in fact maybe $60 in five years' time—maybe.'

What does the Leader of the Opposition do then? Does he say, 'No, that's wrong. It is $300.' No, he immediately adopts the new number and says, 'It's an excellent saving. I knew that.' So there are two considerations: he deliberately misled people during the telephone call, or he is stupid. Why else would you have just made a telephone call to thousands of South Australians saying that it is $300 and then at a press conference, under the slightest bit of pressure, say that it is actually $60 to $70 with a dazed and confused shadow minister standing behind you?

You have to ask yourself what goes through their minds as they are doing this and what their colleagues are thinking as they are watching this. Sixteen years of opposition and the tip of the spear is getting it wrong again on the eve of the election. The No. 2, who cannot tell a lie, says that it is $60 to $70. What are they thinking? Can you imagine the conversational swearing going on in the background? Can you imagine what they are telling each other through SMS? Can you imagine what is going on in the Liberal Party as they are considering it? 'We have done it again. He's done it again—not once, not twice but three times.'

Let's look at the detail of the policy they are taking to the people of South Australia. The Premier and I and the cabinet considered in depth the possibility of an interconnector into New South Wales. We took advice on an interconnector into New South Wales—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland is warned.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and we spoke to people who know about these things and what the impacts would be on the South Australian grid, South Australian prices and South Australian reliability. Overwhelmingly, the advice came back that this is always, in today's uncompetitive market, an option B because there is something that the opposition have not considered in their policies or, if they have, they should be ashamed of themselves. It is called the displacement effect of a new interconnector.

South Australia is home to the most efficient gas-fired generator in the nation: Pelican Point. It had been mothballed, and it was mothballed because it was not competitive in ENGIE's energy mix. I have grave concerns about the displacement effect of a new interconnector into South Australia from a jurisdiction like New South Wales until we have a competitive market, but the opposition tell us that they can get this interconnector up within three years—three years. This is what the Leader of the Opposition himself said on radio when we announced the feasibility when we were looking at an interconnector:

… they're going to look at a feasibility study for more interconnection, this is going to take a year, a year to do a feasibility study... we know with other interconnectors, they've taken five or six years to build—

This is the Leader of the Opposition—

…so are we really heading towards seven years of… high prices...

So the Leader of the Opposition himself, in his own mind, is telling the people of South Australia that the interconnector option is about seven years away. Yet in his recorded message, and in his pronouncements to the people of South Australia, he could have this done by 2021 through the sheer power of his personality. The sheer power of his personality will overcome the regulatory test. And we know that there is going to be a regulatory test—unless he is lying again—because he went on radio and said that this will be a regulated asset, not a direct build by the government but a regulated asset.

That is interesting because what does it mean if it is a regulated asset? It means this: it means that it will be owned by the private sector which will be charging South Australians a tariff for the use of that energy, of that infrastructure. But of course he is also going to give those private providers a bit of a helping hand, a bit of a taxpayer gift of cash as well. We are not going to have equity in this interconnector because they have not announced equity. They are going to give a cash grant to a foreign company to build an interconnector which will what? It will displace South Australian generation and make us more reliant on interstate generation.

I think that we are all passionate South Australians in this room, even our opponents. I do not doubt one bit the patriotism and the love for our state of the members opposite, but ask yourself this: if Victoria needed emergency power from South Australia and South Australians needed that same power, who would we choose? What would be the responsible thing to do as a South Australian energy minister? It would be to choose your own constituents, to choose your own state, to choose your own economy. But the Liberal Party thinks that we can trust the people of New South Wales and trust the people of Victoria that they would share the pain and burden.

We know that Gladys Berejiklian is saying that there are going to be shortages this summer. She is saying that their state will suffer from blackouts. She is saying that they are facing scarcity, yet this is the jurisdiction they want to interconnect to. They want us to interconnect into a jurisdiction that cannot supply their own needs. On 10February, when they load shed the Tomago smelter, what would they have done to us instead, if we did not have generators on because they had been displaced because the opposition had subsidised a private interconnector into our state to game and kill our generators? What happens then? We are at their mercy.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Take a tablet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Take a tablet. Take a tablet. There it is—take a tablet. After ruining their election campaign again, after fumbling their major announcement again, he turns out rubbish. You had a good day last week, did you? Really? The only people in the world who had a good day. If that was a good day, what is a bad day? Spontaneously combusting in public? You have to be kidding, right? How can you put out a message to everyone saying that you are going to save $300 and then have your shadow minister, in front of every major TV station, say, 'No, that's wrong. It's only $60 to $70.' Good day?

I have seen incompetence, and the incompetence I saw that I thought could not be matched was on the Friday before the last state election. But, God, they can surprise us. I have grave concerns about what the opposition are offering the people of South Australia. The reason I have these concerns is that they have no faith in their own plan. This was an opportunity for us to debate. The Leader of the Opposition could have stood up and made a debate about his plan. He did not.

The Hon. S.E. Close: There's an idea.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He did not. There's an idea: talk about your own plan, be positive. I am sure that the shadow minister will because he still has aspirations even after he blew his brains out on TV publicly last week, but I am sure he has aspirations.

I will say this, that the most stunning part of their plan is to privatise a generator that they have not even bought yet. That is a commitment to an ideology. That is impressive—to commit to sell a state-owned generator before they have even bought it. 'What are you thinking of doing; buying a state owned generator?' 'No, we are selling it.' That is impressive, and what are they going to do? They are going to reverse auction to replace the capacity of that generator.

What they are hoping is that someone will not dispatch into the system and bid for their load—so that means we are going to be short anyway—or that someone will build in enough time in one year to offer us that load. That is the plan because if our generator is not in the system and we are short, they will do a reverse auction. So that means someone has to have kit here available to dispatch.

If you are not dispatching because you have a reverse auction in place, we are going to be short if they are going to call on you. What do you do then when you are still short, after your reverse auction has not got anyone building new generation? You are going to be short and reliant on other people who will set to price and game our market. Their policy is poor, it is ill-conceived, it is dangerous, it is risky and they cannot even put a price on how much it will save. When the do-nothing option is better than the option you are advocating, that would never pass a Labor cabinet.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:15): I hope the failed energy minister got everything he wanted to off his chest. The failed energy minister has been almost six years in the job and he spends approximately $27 million per year on his energy policy department. No doubt the people who work there are doing their very best. No doubt they are capable, talented, good people, but the difficulty is the rot is at the top. The difficulty is that after six years of being the energy minister, we have the most expensive electricity in the nation, we have the most unreliable electricity in the nation, we have people who are terrified to open their bills and we have people who worry about blackouts.

One of the fastest growing retail and commercial businesses in our state over the last 12 months has been the sale of generators to people for their businesses and their homes. Has anybody on the other side of the chamber bought a generator in the last 12 months?

The Hon. S.W. Key: Yes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Let me just tell you that fear about what the failed energy minister has done to us is a bipartisan concern. It is a bipartisan concern to worry about what the failed energy minister has done to all South Australians. It is no accident that we have the most expensive electricity in the nation and we have unacceptably high unemployment. They go together because this affects everybody from the smallest household to the largest employer.

We are blessed to have some outstanding large employers in South Australia—wonderful companies doing a tremendous job—but they, in South Australia, are also locked into very large electricity consumption. Whether it is the small, the medium or the large household, whether it is the smallest of businesses, all the way through to a company employing thousands of people, energy affects absolutely everybody.

How did we get here apart from having the failed energy minister's policies leading his department wherever he and his government colleagues wanted to go? It started back with the former premier Rann who knew at the time—and it was true—that there was a growing swell of support for renewable energy and a desire to support the environment. Who in this room does not share a desire to support the environment? Nobody; we all do. The argument is about at what pace, at what rate, at what cost.

We know on this side of the house that we must transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy—there is no doubt about that—and I am sure members opposite feel the same. The difference between us is at what rate and at what cost. We have a very different view when it comes to that. The government, under former premier Rann and the current Premier, just want to get there as fast as possible and they do not care what it costs anybody. They just believe for no doubt personal reasons and no doubt political reasons that that is the way for them to go. As many wind farms as want to apply, just let them go.

They let the Port Augusta power station close because they want to get there as quickly as possible. We know that it needs to be a well-planned, well-managed transition through that process; otherwise, the people caught in the middle suffer unacceptably. I am not saying that it is not worth making an investment as part of this transition—of course it is—but to make people suffer unacceptably through that process is completely disgraceful, completely unacceptable, and no government should ever do that.

The most stark example of this government making people suffer for absolutely no reason is the failed energy minister's policy that forced the closure of the Port Augusta power station prematurely. Of course, it had to close one day. Of course, it was heading towards closure. Of course, if it was not for the coal running out in 10 or 15 years, it was going to be maintenance costs getting too high in five or 10 years' time.

Keep in mind that Alinta had spent tens of millions of dollars—I think approaching $50 million—in the year or two before their announcement upgrading their facility, so they were ready to go. Keep in mind that Alinta had publicly announced a plan to run the coalmine and the power station through until 2032. They were ready to go. They were ready to go, but the government's failed energy policy allowing too much intermittent unreliable wind energy into the state made it impossible for the Port Augusta power station and the Alinta company running it to respond, and they were warned about this.

Back in 2009, the government itself went to two different consultants and paid them to give them advice about whether they should increase the renewable energy target from 25 per cent to 33 per cent. Both organisations that the government went to for advice said, 'Don't do it. If you do it, you will damage the stability of the grid. Do it more slowly. Wait until storage options are there. Wait until the integration of the fossil fuels and the renewable energy is better and smarter and more usable.' They said, 'Thanks for that advice,' and threw that in the bin. It went from 25 per cent to 33 per cent, then subsequently went from 33 per cent to 50 per cent. They do not care about the people who suffer in the middle; we do. We are the ones who care about the people who suffer in the middle.

What we have is the government finally waking up to all of this after the statewide blackout and other blackouts, nonstop prices going up, the public saying, 'You guys are crazy. We cannot believe you have left us in this situation,' and saying, 'Yes, actually you are right. We have been on a ridiculous path.' So they have announced their policy, and most people know about those components. Why? Because the government has spent millions of taxpayers' money in advertising telling the taxpayers all about that policy instead of just getting on and doing it. The remarkable thing about the government's policy is that it is worse for the environment and it is worse for consumers' pockets.

More emissions will come from the state Labor government's energy plan than without it, and the state Labor government cannot tell anyone how much their policy will save. I have been asking them, the leader has been asking them, the media has been asking them and I am sure their backbenchers have been asking them. I am sure staff and Labor Party members—everybody—are saying, 'Yes, this is lovely. Thank you very much. We appreciate all the advertising. How much money will it save us?' The failed energy minister says, 'Heaps'. Asked when it will happen, he said soon. That is about as good as he can get.

We said we will not be like that. We will deliver a policy that drives prices down, that does not sacrifice reliability, does not sacrifice the environment and is independently assessed by a recognised expert in the field. We do not want to do what the government wanted to do, which is just throw it out there, spend people's money advertising it to the people and just hope everybody trusted them—because nobody does trust them.

We went out and got advice from an independent company, and that independent company has given us advice that says that if our policy is implemented the wholesale price of electricity will go down significantly—absolutely significantly. We have laid that advice out on the table, too. It is there for everybody to see. I am sure the people in the $27 million energy policy department have looked through it, as they should. Good on them; it is an appropriate and sensible thing to do. Our policy advice and our policy are there.

Our policy involves better integrating our supply of electricity. When we get up to the really hot and heavy days—and the failed energy minister mentioned this—when there is 3,000 megawatt usage, those sorts of levels that put our system under pressure, we actually have approximately 6,000 megawatts of installed capacity to generate electricity in the state; it is just not integrated. The policy failures of this government have put us in a situation where, who knows, if it is not windy, if it is not sunny, or if a generator is off, or rooftop solar is in or out, or what is happening here and there, they do not know and they do not care. They have just given as much permission as possible to throw it all into the market and then stand back because they think it will get them votes.

Our policy includes making sure that the energy generation assets that exist in the state already are optimised, are efficient and are used well to the benefit of consumers and suppliers in a good, healthy, strong market with lower prices. All those prices are out there to see. The ACIL Allen report is there and explains exactly what we are doing. Guess what else we are doing as well as the interconnection fund? The failed energy minister is wrong: there are a lot of people who say very clearly that interconnection will drive prices down. We are at the end of the line at the moment, being interconnected to only Victoria. We need an interconnection with New South Wales so that we are part of the loop, so that we can be in the business of optimising the generation that we have.

It will give customers and consumers the opportunity to manage their demand, so that not only do we integrate the supply side better but we give customers, whether they be small or large, the opportunity to manage their demand, to take some of the peaks off, but then we match the two together to drive down prices, to take the volatility out of the market. It is not only the average price that counts; is the volatility that counts. The more volatile the prices are in a market, the more they will go up over time. We address all of those things in our policy.

Guess what else we do? We have a $50 million grid-scale storage pan, a very strong renewable energy component. It could be pumped hydro, it could be another solar thermal, or it could be another battery. It could be a $5 million contribution to 10 of those different projects to get 10 of them up. I say to the failed energy minister: do not forget the day that I brought to this chamber the proposal to have a select committee to look into solar thermal energy back in 2012. You had never heard of it then. You had never, ever heard of it then.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And now it is one of your favourites. That is fantastic. I am glad you got on board. I hope you will get on board with grid-scale storage. I hope you will get on board with pumped hydro. I hope you will get on board with more solar thermal. I hope you will get on board with household batteries, which is another very important component of our policy: $100 million, $2,500 on average to each of 40,000 households across the state. Forty thousand households is roughly 20 per cent of the total households with solar at the moment. This will be means tested, so that people who need additional support will be more eligible or perhaps might get a slightly higher subsidy.

Guess what that will do? That will allow 20 per cent of households in South Australia, which have their maximum generation in the early afternoon, to store their energy for when the maximum demand is in the early evening. That will be good for them, but, even more importantly, that will be good for every South Australian because that and the other components of our energy policy will drive down prices for all South Australians.

Good luck to the people who already have solar panels on their roof. Good luck to the people who might access a subsidy to get a battery, but even better luck to every other South Australian who will get cheaper electricity as a result of our plan being implemented. We can say that we know how much cheaper it will be; the government cannot.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (16:29): There is another element that is important to understand in the energy debate, and that is what is motivating the release of the Liberal Party's botched energy policy only a few days ago. It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone who sits in this chamber because when the Leader of the Opposition does come into this chamber there is a smell in here. There is a sickly, cloying stench of fear—a stench of fear from the Leader of the Opposition.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think that for the minister to say that when the Leader of the Opposition comes in here there is a sickly stench and a smell is completely inappropriate.

The SPEAKER: The minister does not mean it literally? Splendid. Minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The leader's obvious fear and panic continue to rise day after day after day in light of the growing and very real threat and challenge of a number of Xenophon candidates across those conservative electorates that they had been so proud to hold yet have so dreadfully neglected for so long. That is what was behind the rushed policy release of their energy announcement—their absolute panic in sending it out. I am not surprised that members opposite are attuned to this concern and this fear, particularly the member for Chaffey, because he should be feeling the pressure the most. Certainly the polling that everybody is doing across all the parties and the media has him in the crosshairs.

The rush and the panic behind the Liberal opposition, and the way they rolled out their energy policy, were obvious. It was not just that the Leader of the Opposition made a bogus claim to South Australians, that there was a lie encapsulated in that voicemail message that he left on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of phones across South Australia about what the value of the saving would be; there is something deeper behind that.

What would motivate a political leader in this day and age to take such a political risk? It is fear and it is panic. They were under no pressure to put that policy out because, as we know, they had said, 'It'll be when the Finkel report comes out,' which had been out for months. Why the haste now? That is because Nick Xenophon had announced a raft of candidates across Liberal seats: 'Geez, we'd better look like we might be an effective political force in this state. We'd better start rushing out some policy.'

Unfortunately, they botched it. Not only did they botch that, it is just the flag-bearer for their botched policy announcements in response to whatever the pressure, whatever the panic, whatever the growing sense of fear in the Liberal opposition is of the day. Who can forget the now infamous shoot-to-kill policy which was released some weeks ago? Let's think about the circumstances in which that was rolled out. That was rushed out to try to shift attention away from the travails that the member for Mount Gambier finds himself under.

Let's walk through that scenario. The Leader of the Opposition finds out late one week, sits on it, paralysed with fear and indecision, not knowing how to act and waits until the media asks him four days later on a Tuesday, 'Did you know about it?' Suddenly they rush out and say, 'Yes, it's very terrible,' and, 'Good on him. He's offered up his resignation from the party and that should be the end of the matter.' Well, understandably, the clamour from the public of South Australia and the clamour from the media for more decisive action from the leader only continued to escalate.

Unfortunately, this parliament has seen similar circumstances before. Unfortunately, a former member of parliament was charged with criminal charges. What was the response from this side of politics? It was an immediate expulsion from the political party and a demand that that person immediately resign from parliament. And when the Leader of the Opposition would not do it, when the Leader of the Opposition refused to do it, they rush out a shoot-to-kill policy for South Australian police.

What did we find out earlier this week? They did not even talk to the police about it. They had not even consulted with the people whose responsibility it is to keep our community safe. They did not even ask them what they think. They did not ask them how it should be couched or what protections had to be built in. They just rushed out a policy in order to try to divert attention away from the issue of the day.

Speaking of police, it is not the only time they have rushed out a police announcement without doing their homework and without consulting. Who can forget, also now infamous, the dogs in schools?

The Hon. S.E. Close: In public schools.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In fact, not dogs in schools but in public schools, as the Minister for Education reminds me. I know that Rob Lucas is hanging around up there. He is part of the shadow cabinet. He occupies the shadow treasury portfolio. We all remember in the western suburbs—don't we, Mr Speaker, particularly the member for Croydon—what the Hon. Rob Lucas likes to do to schools in the western suburbs. That is right: he likes closing them. Of course, when it comes to an education policy, what better to do than to demonise public education? What better to do than to demonise those parents who send their kids, who often make the choice to send their kids, to public schools and threaten them with a passive alert detection dog, threaten them with a German shepherd when they turn up to school? It is absolutely outrageous.

What do we find out? The police commissioner had no idea. The police commissioner had not been consulted. The police had no opportunity to inform that policy. Only this morning, what did we find out? They have released a regional road funding policy that committed to funding nearly $20 million a year of road funding for South Australia's regions, and what had they not consulted? The budget. They had not even looked at the numbers. They did not even realise what was being spent on roads. In fact, I even told the parliament yesterday how much we spend on regional roads, and they thought, 'That seems excessive. Let's dial that down a bit. Let's back that off a little bit.'

What else did the Leader of the Opposition do? He rushed out a policy this morning without consulting the property development industry about banning high-rise in metropolitan Adelaide. What would that mean for the seat of Dunstan? What would Peregrine do about their development on Portrush Road? Perhaps there will be some special exemption for them. This is a leader motivated by fear, who rushes and panics in the face of the slightest amount of pressure. Imagine what sort of leader he would make: a dreadful one.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for the Arts) (16:37): I think what was telling about this debate, despite the text of the resolution, is that the Leader of the Opposition did not come into this parliament and seek to defend his $300 announcement or, indeed, offer an apology for the fact that it suddenly overnight turned into $60 to $70 maybe in five years.

While that did cause us some degree of excitement and, in some quarters, amusement on this side of the chamber, it did quickly turn to fear, I must say, as we suddenly realised that the Leader of the Opposition could, on the eve of the election, tell everybody to vote Xenophon. This is a worrying development. Really, anything could happen now, and we are in a very risky environment with the Leader of the Opposition. If those opposite think it is a white-knuckle ride, we are certainly beginning to become quite alarmed ourselves.

Motion carried.

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