Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Grey brings into this House a motion whose subject is clearly the responsibility of the South Australian state government. I acknowledge that he acknowledged that, but his bringing into the House this motion clearly tells me that the member for Grey does not have confidence in his state parliament counterparts to raise the matter on behalf of the people of rural and regional Australia. He knows full well that this is a matter that they should be raising in state parliament, but I can well understand why he lacks confidence in his state colleagues in South Australia; having watched their performance over the last 12 months, I would lack confidence in them as well.

The member for Grey talks about a meeting on 15 May which he attended. I have no doubt that he accurately reflects the views of that meeting when he says that people who attended the meeting from the communities were concerned—I do not question that for a moment. But the fact is that Lyn Breuer, who is the state Labor member for the area, has also taken this issue up on behalf of her community. In doing so, she has brought about some changes to the proposal that was originally mooted. Ms Breuer, who is the member for Giles, which covers an area that is not much smaller than the electorate of Grey, has been able to bring about some significant changes to those parts of the original proposal that I suspect were the causes of the concern at the meetings that the member for Grey attended. The member for Grey said that Ms Breuer is speaking out but is not being listened to. I would like to quote from a press release from Ms Breuer on this very matter issued on 14 May:

I am pleased that the government has listened to the business operators in these remote areas and accepted that more time is required to adjust their use of power.

She went on to say:

This outcome provides greater certainty for job-creating businesses in our outback towns while still encouraging more efficient use of energy at a time when there is a great deal of upward pressure on the cost of generating electricity.

That is not quite the government response to Ms Breuer taking up this matter on behalf of her constituents that the member for Grey purports.

Any policy designed to increase energy efficiency in remote communities must include two critical elements. The first is a phased transition that allows business to adjust their structure over a period of time so that they can move towards greater energy efficiency without there being an immediate detrimental effect on their profitability. The second is to ensure that arrangements subsidise small and medium domestic users. Small to medium users have limited ways available to them to soften the impact of increased tariffs. Businesses have greater scope to find energy efficiencies if afforded the time to do so. Let us bear in mind that this subsidy has been in place for 15 years. It is not unreasonable, after 15 years, to review what has taken place. That is exactly what the minister has proposed.

I understand that the South Australian government has announced additional funding of $1.3 million to the department of transport, energy and infrastructure to enable the revised tariffs to general supply customers to be phased in over three financial years. I understand that there are some 2,600 customers across some 13 remote communities who will be affected by this proposal. The subsidy continues to focus on small to medium domestic customers—customers that use up to 8,000 kilowatts per annum. These customers will continue to pay no more than 10 per cent above the on-grid regulated standing contract tariff.

I understand that all general supply customers outside of Coober Pedy will now see increases of between five per cent and 15 per cent compared to pre March 2011 bills. In Coober Pedy, 90 per cent of general supply customers consume under 70,000 kilowatts per annum and will face increases of 10 per cent or less.

The state government has in fact announced a review into the subsidy program. I understand that as part of that review things like the grid connection fee, the energy efficiency measures, renewable energy and Synergy opportunities will all be looked at. It is responsible to do that after 15 years of having a subsidy scheme in operation. I believe that the state government is in fact responding responsibly to the concerns and managing the electricity needs of the region well. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context