 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
I. (a)That in the opinion of this Council a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the South Australian electricity market arrangements and the impact these arrangements have had and are likely to have on electricity prices and security of supply for South Australian consumers, and in particular, to inquire into—
(i)local generation options; (ii)regulated interconnectors; and (iii)unregulated interconnectors. (b)And that this committee assess these arrangements as to their ability to achieve the most economically efficient outcome for South Australia. II.That in the event of a committee being appointed, the Legislative Council be represented thereon by three members, of whom two shall form a quorum of Council members necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee. III.That joint Standing Order No. 6 be so far suspended as to entitle the Chairperson to vote on every question, but when the votes are equal, the Chairperson shall have also a casting vote.
IV.That the joint committee be authorised to disclose or publish, as it thinks fit, any evidence and documents presented to the joint committee prior to such evidence and documents being reported to the Parliament.
V.That a message be sent to the House of Assembly requesting its concurrence thereto,
to which the Hon. Sandra Kanck had moved the following amendment:Paragraph 1—Leave out all words after `the South Australian Electricity Market arrangements' and insert—
their relationship to the National Electricity Market and the impact these arrangements have had and are likely to have on electricity prices and security of supply for South Australian consumers and, in particular, to inquire into—
(Continued from 7 July.)(i)local generation options including the appropriateness of the disaggregation arrangements made in South Australia and the potential for the use of ecologically sustainable energy and demand management;
(ii)regulated interconnectors;
(iii)unregulated interconnectors;
(iv)the need for a State energy policy;
(v)the need for a Standing Committee of the Parliament to monitor South Australian involvement in the Electricity Market and;
(vi)any other related matter.
(b)And that this committee assess these arrangements as to their ability to achieve the most economically efficient and ecologically desirable outcomes for South Australia.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to speak briefly in support of this motion. When the debate was going on about electricity legislation generally, it appears to me that people made the mistake of focusing very much on one issue, and that issue was the issue of privatisation itself, when I think there were some other fundamentally important questions that essentially got ignored during that debate, but they were relevant to the debate. One question was about the structure of the electricity industry—what structure in private hands and what structure in public hands would produce the best price? When I say the `best price' I do not mean the best price for the Government in selling it but what would give us the most competitive power prices.
I think a far bigger question, and one which the Hon. Sandra Kanck has sought to include in her amendment, is a State energy policy. We have focused on electricity alone, but electricity is only one way that energy may be used in a workplace: it may be delivered as gas, and there are other options as well. It would be very dangerous to focus on electricity alone and not to look at the issue in a wider context.
Since the passage of the legislation, I have had occasion to talk with a number of senior business people from around the State—and when I say `senior' I mean very significant players in South Australia—and I can tell members that they are deeply concerned about the future. In fact, there has been a dawning realisation amongst some of them that power prices are about to increase, and they are becoming quite concerned. Unfortunately, the Employers Chamber allowed itself to be trapped in the debate about private versus public, which was almost a rhetorical debate; and some people got caught up in the debate about State debt. I am saying not that those are unimportant questions but that there are two other very important fundamental questions: the question about the best structure within the electricity industry to deliver the best price of electricity for both domestic consumers and business users; and that is really a subset of a much bigger debate about State energy policy generally. There is not a State energy policy, and it is quite appalling that we are making decisions about the electricity market in a vacuum. The Hon. T.G. Cameron: What vacuum are you talking about? The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: In a policy vacuum. The Government went to an election saying that it would not sell and it did the opposite. The Hon. L.H. Davis interjecting: The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It is a vacuum because it was an ad hoc decision. What about Boral, which went through proper planning processes and was about to build a plant of the same size and, having gone through due process, found another group being fast-tracked. That is not the essence of the proposal: I am saying that it was ad hoc and was not part of a State energy policy. It seems to me— The Hon. L.H. Davis: The Democrats don't mind the odd blackout? They have enough of them. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: If you had one you would do the world a favour. Members interjecting: The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Permanent, yes: close him down. He's redundant; ancient infrastructure. He has been around for too long, and the generator is clapped out and delivering no power. Members interjecting: The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The decision about the sale of electricity has been made, so this committee is not about the correctness or otherwise of that: it seems to me that this committee is about where we go from here, and hopefully in an apolitical climate, because there is potential for an awful lot of politics to climb in over the next couple of years. Frankly, South Australia is paying too much for gas, and right now the politics of gas and the linkages can be quite dangerous.The Hon. T.G. Cameron: When Labor is in government, Santos will tip some money into its pockets and, when the Liberals are in government, some money into their pockets.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: By way of interjection, the Hon. Terry Cameron has reflected on the capacity of some companies to be able to assist political Parties from time to time. I believe that, if members take the time to look at this motion, they will find that it is really about looking to the future. It seems to me that there is nothing about this proposed committee and the motion that refers to the past. It would be extremely helpful if we had members from both places and all political Parties having the opportunity, in a non-partisan fashion, to look at the energy future of this State. That is one of the fundamental questions, along with water, and population perhaps: there are probably three or four fundamental questions that really need to be addressed. It would be a great pity if members of the Council did not look at the motion carefully and did not see that it does not reflect upon decisions made but looks to the future, particularly with the amendments moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck, which broaden the debate into the necessary energy debate—a debate that this State desperately needs.Amendment negatived.
The Council divided on the motion:
AYES (4)
Elliott, M. J. Gilfillan, I.
Kanck, S. M. Xenophon, N. (teller)
NOES (17)
Cameron, T. G. Crothers, T.
Davis, L. H. Dawkins, J. S. L.
Griffin, K. T. Holloway, P.
Laidlaw, D. V. Lawson, R. D.
Lucas, R. I. (teller) Pickles, C. A.
Redford, A. J. Roberts, R. R.
Roberts, T. G. Schaefer, C. V.
Stefani, J. F. Weatherill, G.
Zollo, C.
Majority of 13 for the Noes. Motion thus negatived.