Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Lateline -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) (SILENCE)

There's a big evolution, I think,
in communication happening and it's pretty exciting.

I love this one here.

People want to communicate again...

..like film did
a long, long time ago.

Film is redefining itself. It's a medium that may not be
the feature film much longer, but as long as you can still
come out with a story that emotionally touches
the audience or connects with them, that's all I care about -
it's really the audience in the end. And I think the editor
is responsible for that.

(LAUGHS)

KAPUR: Jill and I have not worked
for seven years. So it's just a pleasure. I mean, I would...I moved heaven
and earth to get her to do this. And I think that
we've now becoming a team, and teams only get boring
if one member of the team stops growing or changing.

So she's had this kind of life where she's pushed herself into
uncertainty all the time. And when you push yourself
into uncertainty all the time, you are so ready to change.

The directors that I've worked with
have all nourished my creative life. What happens when you work well with these people is that it starts to cross over and you bring together the two strengths and that creates something new. And that's all that it's about. (TANGO PLAYS)

With endings or any part of a film, the main problem is to know
when to get out.

You need to actually decide, what is it exactly you wanted
to achieve by the end of this? You actually just have to know
that you've got it.

For never was a story of more woe,
than this of Juliet and her Romeo.

(BLUE DANUBE WALTZ PLAYS)

Captions by Ericsson Access Services Copyright
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Hello. Rachel Pupazzoni with the top stories on ABC News. The South Australian Government will spend more than $500 million dollars to build a new gas-fired power plant and Australia's largest battery. Under the plan the private sector will build the battery while the State Government will build, own and operate a gas-fired plant to provide power grid stability. West Australian Nationals Leader Brendon Grylls has conceded defeat in his seat of Pilbara. It follows a $2 million campaign against him by the mining industry angry at his iron ore tax proposal. Mr Grylls had wanted to increase a 25 cent per tonne iron ore lease rental fee imposed on the two miners. The Royal Commission into the Northern Territory's juvenile detention system has heard a guard breached procedures when a 15-year-old girl was restrained and stripped while being placed in a cell. The commission also heard another guard was placed back at the Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre even though he had previously been removed after more than a dozen complaints against him. A South-East Queensland family is homeless after a powerful thunderstorm tore the roof from their house this morning. A line of destructive thunderstorms swept through parts of the region, bringing down power lines. Those are the latest headlines from ABC News. Lateline is next.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services.

Good evening. I'm Matt Wordsworth. Tonight: The 4-day working week. Could this be the future for Australia? We reveal the Federal Greens' ambitious plan. How would it work? Many workers in Australia now are working quite extended hours, especially men. And so I think a lot of workers intuitively know that. They want to spend more time looking after themselves, with their families and communities. First, the SA Government announced it will spend more than $500 million to build a new gas-fired power plant and Australia's largest battery storage centre, part of a bid to take control of the flailing electricity market. The Federal Government struck back with a warning that the plan will push prices up in other parts of the country. The politicians remain at that stalemate and two billionaires have offered an immediate solution forming their plans to combat the crisis in 100 days. We will speak to one shortly. First the details of the proposed plan. In September last year a massive stort left thousands of SA homes without -- storm left thousands of SA homes without power. Since then blackouts has further undermined confidence in the grid. Today the SA Premier said it was time to take control of the state's energy supplier. Today fundamentally we have market failure. The private sector is not investing in new or existing generation.The heart of the plan involves the State Government building a new $360 million plant.

Premier Weatherill said the national electricity market is failing because of a failure to put a price on pollution.There is no future in coal. And the only future is a price on carbon that sends the right investment signals to get clean energy generation. We're not seeing that at a national level. That's why SA is taking its steps at a state level to implement those measures. But the Federal Energy Minister is not keen on SA taking control of its own energy supply and says the move could impact on other parts of the country. Today SA wants to rip up that national agreement and in doing so will only drive up prices for its people as well as those in other states.We're told that power prices will be lower, both in relative terms and in absolute terms.Just who will supply Australia's largest battery plant is yet to be decided. But already international tech giants are expressing interest. Last week Tesla boss Elon Musk said on Twitter that he could fix SA's electricity problems in 100 days with his new Tesla batteries. He and Australian software billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes created a Twitter storm with the following exchange.

But sorting out the domestic politics of Australia's future energy supply may not be so easy. Let's hear from Mike Cannon-Brookes, the Australian businessman and behind the bold plan to fix the problems in 100 days t cofounder and CEO of Australian software company, and welcome to Lateline. You cofounded a company bigger than Qantas, I am guessing you're fairly busy. What motivated you to get involved in this?It was 1am in the morning. I'd had a pretty bad week of hearing politicians talking about the wrong things to do with energy in this country. I saw the bet that Linden put out, that he could solve it.The CEO of Tesla here?He was the CEO of Solar City and now of Tesla Energy. And he said he could fix it. I just tweeted him at 1am and said was he serious and did he think he could do this if I could figure out the other parts of the equation.Were you prepared for the response? You said your phone blew up?I wasn't expecting to get a response, let alone the reaction from all quarters of society. It's been quite mind blowing.What does it tell you about the state of the energy debate in Australia, that you're getting this incredible response just from people on Twitter and industry and politicians?Look, I think it shows that people are sick of the debate. I if I had a goal it was to change the conversation and introduce alternate solutions and prove there are other ways to solve these problems. That worked better than expected, as has the number of people who have come back and said they're excited and would give their time, their money and are keen on renewable solutions and technology being the way forward.Because I mean, batteries like in the industry, they've been talking about this for a long time, but do you think you've achieved your end here in that you've got a perm nept change in the conversations, battery also be part of the solution?It's early to claim victory on a perm nept change in the conversation, but it's an utterly different conversation to 7 days ago. The important thing is that we're having conversations and debates about which batteries are the best. A fantastic change. And number two, people are starting to believe this is not some sort of futuristic 20 years from now technology. This could be here today. We could do this if we wanted to and we put our minds to it. That's a different conversation. Today, total coincidence, the SA Government says it wants to build a 100 megawatt battery storage, the biggest in Australia. What does this announcement do to your plan to build an exactly the same sized battery storage facility in SA with Elon Musk? Calling it my plan is a bit grandiose. The SA Government has committed, as far as I'm aware. I haven't read the entire plan, but as far as I'm aware they've committed to putting money towards helping a live scale battery, potentially the largest in the world to exist in SA, to be a solution to their energy crisis. That's fantastic, forward thinking. Will you latch on to that sort of fund to help finance this deal or is this separate to that announcement?Certainly be having a look at that in the next couple of days and see if it makes sense. There's some economic challenges in making these batteries happen, but they're far more realistic than in the past.Thekind of power outages they've seen in SA. I mean, one of the limitations to batteries is they run out, you know, they're two hours or 4 hours, at 100 megawatts per hour - would they have solved the problems that SA have seen?100 megawatt batteries would have ridden them through the February problems, 90,000 houses got put out. So that is concluded that would be the case. In September/October they had more major outages. There is a question mark about whether 100 is enough to get there. Some say it is. Some say it would need to be up to 300. Regardless the 100 would have made a huge difference in that case. So it would have been a big part of the solution and potentially could have make that blackout not happen. The economics of battery storage seem to be falling like a stone. Elon Musk basically in that tweet to you, halved the world cost of battery storage. The most competitive world cost, yes.Are we seeing prices just fall like a stone?Prices will continue to fall of battery storage. They will continue to fall of batteries. Cell phones, laptops, computers, electric cars, plus residential battery storage and industrial stage storage, you will see this scale production going up and up in the coming years, which will result in the prices coming down. That will continue to happen. So SA has $150 million renewable fund to tap into and they're aiming for 100 megawatts, how much could they get for their money?It depends on how the $150 million is put towards which projects. There is a chance they could get significantly more than 100 with that amount of money as far as I understand. They're buying insurance against the bat veri owner to stabilise the grid in times of crisis. So the rest of the time the battery owner would have ways to make their money by trading energy. Between the two of those, you could get more than $150 million of batteries with your $150 million fund.SA wants to build a gas-fired power plant to edeploy it in peak demand to pe vent the black outs and brown outs and stabilise the grid. You don't think the plants are such a good idea?In a long-term they're not the right solution. We're in a big transition of energy at the moment. There's no way that transition doesn't happen. Solar, wind, renewable energy, the costs are coming down and down. The productivity of those resources are going up and up. So that is going to be the way of the future. There's no-one you will find who will disagree with that. The question about whether we need another peaking plant to get through the current shortages or just batteries would be enough is a good debate to have. I'm not sure I've exactly read their plan in detail.If you look at the Labor Party, the Coalition, it seems like there's this consensus that gas is a transition to renewables, but you're saying, just jump straight to renewables?I think you need to be smart about how you do it. People want to press a button and get electricity, get the lights turned on. Then they want that to be as clean as possible because they want a better planet for their children. That's clear from the response this week. The question is how we get there and how do we deal with entrenched interests and other people that are holding us back from getting there as soon as is economically possible for consumers and for everybody else. Another idea is the transition would be helped by clean coal. What do you make of that?Look. Luckily I'm not a politician, so I get to deal in facts. You can talk, say whatever you like. I get to deal in facts. That doesn't exist. It's a, an invented phrase. You have no faith in clean coal?No. Why is that?Because it will be both more expensive than large scale wind and solar plants, number one, to build, in terms of the capital and the amount of energy produced over time and secondly it's not clean at all.You've invested in a lot of solar companies, how, as an investment, does it stack up, as a businessman, a billionaire, how does an investment in solar compared to one in gas or other forms of fossil fuel stack up?If you're building a large scale plant today solar is the cheapest and will get cheaper and cheaper per megawatt of power. I've invested in a series of different types of solar companies, some doing for residential, some faster ways of employing residential rooftop solar, so there's a whole lot of industries around here, but it's the way of the future.We are running out of time. I want to ask you about a tweet that you said you spent an hour talking to Alan Finkel, our viewers would know that chief scientist. He's writing a hotly anticipated review into Australia's energy market. In that conversation, did he give you a hint about where he's headed, where his mind is at?He did. I came away very excited about the way he's thinking about where the energy market should go in Australia. Hopefully he can get that written down and out to the people to judge whether that's OK.No hints ahead of the game?I don't think I can give that away.Mike Cannon-Brookes, thanks for your time.Thanks for having me, man.

What would life be like if you only had to work four days a week. Less time in the office, more hours with your family and friends? Could it work? Greens leader Richard Di Natale thinks it can. His National Press Club tomorrow will launch the Greens' proposal for a 4-day working week. The approach has been trialed by Amazon, google and Deloitte and in a larger scale in France, but with mixed results. In Australia, the experience of an enforced 4-day working week is usually only offered to workers in struggle businesses.This is Tasmania's largest private employer with more than 900 on the payroll. They're now fighting for their jobs with today's ultimatum to reduce hours or face redundancy. Workers at a catamaran manufacture were told they would have to choose between a 4-day week or loss of 200 jobs. These examples go back decades. Johnsons Tannery at Mount Barker is among the three biggest leather manufactures in Australia. But the current downturn hitting industry generally has forced the company to go to a 4-day week.Now the Greens are proposing Australian workers have the right to tell employers they will only work a 4-day working week. If you believe the research, about a quarter of workers want to work less. That is right. According to figures taken from the quaintly named Hilda, the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. About 3% want to cut hours.We have be moving in the wrong direction, with the growing proportion working very long hours and a lot of workers, Eslake specially women, or people with responsibilities of care for others, looking for shorter hours and flexn't.In more recent times, Utah has been trialing a 4-day week for public servants. They have tried to cram hours into the four days. There was a public backlash because government services were not open Fridays. Since the turn of the century, France has gone with a 4-day working week for some of its workers, as a way of boosting employment. The French are good at many things but economic management is not one of them. Their economy has grown at barely more than 1% per annum over the past 7 years. That's less than Japan, for example. Their unemployment rate has not been below 7% since 1983. There isn't anything I can think of, the French have done in the economic sphere, that I would want to see emulated in Australia. Saul Eslake projects any feel-good factor associated with working less. It may make some feel good, but those who have lower incomes they would like because they're working fewer hours than they would like, the businesses who are less profitable because of measures like this, and therefore employ fewer people, I don't think they would be happy as a result of a change along these lines. There's no evidence to suggest that the French people think their economy is better managed. But flexibility of employment is something that is gaining traction in Australia. I think many workers in Australia now are working quite extended hours, especially men. And we have a growing body of evidence which suggests that it's not good for their mental or physical health. And so I think a lot of workers intuitively know that. They want to spend more time looking after themselves, with their families and communities. Reductions in working time are timely. We haven't had a serious reduction in working time in Australia for a very long time. We've got very flat wage growth, and people may well want to substitute having more time for the fact that they're not getting a pay rise. One of the growing concerns of people in employment is their inability to work as many hours as they are willing and available to work, which is in turn adversely affecting incomes. What's been proposed here would make that problem worse, and perhaps make it worse for more people. The Greens have also called for a universal basic income. Everyone receives an unconditional sum of money regardless of their circumstances. For us we say this is a great debate for us to have. Our top priority, though, must be to lift the level of the basic income for people who really need it yesterday. The Greens haven't costed it, but ACOSS estimates a raise in just jobless payments by $50 per week per person would cost the taxpayer about $2 billion a year. It would be the single most important measure to reduce the level of poverty. I think we all agree that inequality is an increasing challenge, it's unacceptable we have people who are locked out of paid work, who cannot afford to eat, to cover the very basic costs, so I really welcome this debate. I think it helps for people across the community to think about how do we provide the security for people that for circumstances completely outside our control. You cannot get a job. I'm joined live from Melbourne by Greens leader Richard Di Natale for more on the proposal to cut the Australia working week to four days. Welcome.Good day.What kind of model do you have, how would it work?We're calling for a debate on what the future of work looks like. Part of that debate has to be a discussion around a shorter working week. We've got in Australia people here doing hours than any development on earth. An average of 44 hours a week, much of it is unpaid overtime. Employers, it lines their pockets. They see the benefit. We know that many of them would ra rather work fewer hours, would rather spend more time with their time with their families, and more time than important in life. They want to work to live, not live to work. The issue here is we need to have this conversation. There are a whole range of models of how this could be brought forward. We're not suggesting any specific model. We know in Sweden, for example, a 6-hour work day was implemented in the aged care sector to increase productivity, because people who are happier and healthier at work are more productive. We have to have the conversation. At the moment in Australia we also have many people who are underemployed, who don't have access to employment. We have a big distribution problem. It's about tackling those things.So if for instance, you crunch the 40 hours into four days, you get the same economic output, but if you then cut to 32 hours and work four days, but the same pay, then you need to find the businesses and government need to provide the services they used to. You might have to employ more people, putting a cost on business and government. Which way are you looking?That's why we're saying we need to have the debate. To be really clear, because I think the -- intro there said we were calling specifically for a four hch day work week. We're calling for a national debate on the future of work in this country. It's time we did that. It's time we recognised there are big questions we're not asking ourselves, what sort of society do we want to be? What does the future of work in this country look like? How do we deal with the fact that wages have remained stagnant but productivity gret has gone through the roof. Ordinary people are not seeing the benefit of that. They're doing a lot of unpaid overtime. I think we're having a debate about jobs. It's an important one. No-one wants to see job creation more than I do. But we have to ask ourselves those bigger wes. What is the purpose of work? How do we ensure that people get to spend more time with their families, do the things that are important for them. And we start to look at some of the evidence overseas. Utah was another example mentioned. A 4-day work week, hours compressed within that 4-day period. The workers in the public sector, they were overwhelmingly supportive, as was the union.They did an audit of the Utah example, where they found that people didn't like having a Friday where they couldn't go down to their local government library, or post office or whatever it might have been, so they scrapped it in the end.That's right. That might be a good argument for us to allocate more flexibility in work. We've gt a bill before the Parliament, a work-life balance bill that says if you are an individual employee, it should be alright to request flexible work hours and it should be up to the employer to prove why you can't have them. We have to start making progress in this area, because we have so many people in this country who who are working more hours than they should. At the same time we have so many people who are underemployed or indeed unemployed. And and that's the big challenge. To start looking at these more creative proposals to recognise that unless we ask ourselves these big questions, we won't make that progress. We all strove hard to have a shorter working week. We're going backwards now. We're doing more hours than we were a few decades ago. That's not progress. And so it's all very well for the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader to stand up at the National Press Club and talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. We also need to ask ourselves, those big questions about what sensible work-life balance looks like.One of the other proposals you're going to raise tomorrow is the universal basic income. Have you worked so far as to find out what level of universal basic income you want to mandate?Look, again, it's important we have a national debate on this issue. Our proposal, our policy has always been to ensure that people have enough income so that they're not consigned to poverty. And so...The poverty line is about $400,000 a week -- $400 a week, $20,000 a year.NewStart keeps people on the poverty line. Our existing social security system is condemning people to live beneath the poverty line.So maybe $20,000? Is that what you you're thinking? Let's reform our social security system and look at what's happening overseas in some of the trials done in Cannon-Brookes da, in Scotland n Italy, at universal basic income. We know there is a debate. We know there is a debate around the merits of the policy. We know universal basic income has the Cahill passty to unleash a whole lot of innovation and creativity within the workforce. We know we can compensate for some of the costs through a progressive taxation system. Let's look at the trials. Let's not close ourselves off to some of these interesting innovations that are being developed right around the world and yet here in Australia we're stuck with this 19th century model of what work should look like. We're a 21st Century economy. It's time we started opening ourselves up to some of the big challenges and it's the Greens in the Parliament who are doing that. As you mention, they've been trialed in Canada, Netherlands, I believe and Finland. We will see how it goes there. To the big news development, the SA plan to build its own and run its own gas-fired power plant. What's your reaction to that announcement?Well, I think it's remarkable it takes two billionaires to save the poll -- say to the politicians, get out of the way and we will fix it. This is a failure of public policy at the most fundamental level. We've seen successive governments squib it, engage in ideological wars. We had the Coalition banning on about power prices under the carbon price and energy costs have doubled and we're losing energy security. This is a complete failure from a Coalition Government and listening to the Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg talk about power prices going up when we know that having battery storage is part of the solution - not the complete solution, but a big part of it.Do you think it's part of the solution?Gas and coal are fossil fuels that have no long-term future. Instead of investing in fossil fuels as the SA Government is proposing, we could invest more in our battery solutions and battery storage a grid up to the 21st Century challenge and renewable energy capacity, and through a combination of those measures, coupled with demand management, we don't have to look at the past, looking at coal and gas polluting fossil fuels heating up the planet that means we will lose the Great Barrier Reef, that will drive up energy prices. Listen to the innovators. You've had two billionaires who come up and say to the politicians, you guys get out the way, we will fix it. There's no technological barrier here. Technology exists. We need the political will.I want to ask you about one element of today's announcement. This proposal to give the farmers or land owners 10% of royalties of any Coalition seam gas extracted from that property. -- coal seam gas extracted from that property. What effect will that have among farmers particularly if they get a cut to the royalties?I think most farmers know that unconventional gas pollutes their water, degrades their farm and leaves a toxic legacy for the future. You've seen the backlash across the country against unconventional gas and this effort to buy off farmers is doomed to fail, because many of them understand that climate change is a big challenge that affects their livelihoods and know the technology there when it comes to batteries, renewables a smarter grid, it exists already. It's up to the politicians to fik it.You don't think the money will make some opposition fade away?If you speak to farmers and talk to them habit unconventional gas, their concern is the impact on their land and the legacy they're leaving to their kids and their grand kids. No, I don't think they will have a bar of it.Thank you so much for your time Senator.A pleasure. That's all for Lateline. You can find tonight's interviews on our website. Good night.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services. Welcome to the Business. Coming up on the program: Switching on battery, gas and ministerial power. SA's $550 million plan - the plan that could send millions to the Cayman Islands.

SA has unveiled a blueprint it says will guarantee no more blackouts for the state. Reliance on gas and battery power are the cornerstones of the half-a-billion-dollar plan with new ministerial powers to intervene in the market. Premier Weatherill whet announced a government-owned and operated gas-coal-fired power plant to be switched on in emergencies. He pledged Australia's highest battery storage facility with a plan to send power back to coal-dependent states. There is no future in coal and the only future is a price on carbon that sends the right investment signals so we can get clean energy generation. The battery storage plant is to be built by the private sector with some government money. Tesla and several other companies are lining up to compete for the contract. New laws will also give the Energy Minister the authority to order a power generator to switch on supply if needed. More power is - that power is currently held by the Australian energy market operator. The authority came under fire for failing to direct local operators to switch on during peak summer disruptions. I spoke to Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis after the announcement. Tom Koutsantonis, you have said that today is all about sending the right investment signals to the business community or, particularly, to energy companies. What is it about building a state-owned gas-fired plant that will get other people investing? More importantly, what we have done is given people certainty over the investments in SA that are already there. Those gas-fire generators that are sitting in SA, indeed across the country, waiting for an investment from the Commonwealth Games which seems is not coming and any time soon, now have an investment signal in SA. All thermal, gas-fire generation will be able to generate credits which retailers will be compelled to buy. What that means is all of a sudden their generators have a value. If they invest in new generation, there is a market there ready for them through our energy security target. Building our own gas-fire generator won't be a market participant or in there competing against anyone else. It will simply be there as emergency back-up. Treasurer, what exactly constitutes an "emergency"? When exactly will you use this gas-fired plant? I'll give you an example. If we are seeing lack of reserve notices in the South Australian market, that is that all available generation is on, that the interconnector is flowing, we are still going to be short, we will turn on back on generation. With what are the new powers you have to intervene in the market? A lot of state restrictions have this power in place for the gas market. It is something that the state gave away when the former government privatised our electricty assets. What we will be doing is legislating to give the powers to reintervene in the market to give us greater controller generation. We had this obscene situation where we had gas-fire generation sitting dormant while South Australians were load-shed by the local market operators. That generator could be called on earlier and could have been operating and avoided load-shedding. I will be using those ministerial powers on those occasion to make sure that generation is turned on when it is needed. What is the trigger for that? Notices in the market from the Australian energy market operator. I have lost confidence in them to be able to enforce their rules appropriately, so if I see they are not acting quickly enough, that they are not delivering on their policy and what their own rules say they should be doing, I will be acting in the state's interest, making sure that we won't have a situation ever again where gas-fire generation is sitting dormant in SA while South Australians are sitting around.

The markets can't choose this. How helpless to the national network if SA is going to be a little more protectionist in how it uses and trades within the network? It is not a matter of being protectionist. It is about making sure we maintain our own sovereignty. The idea that some private market operators whose shareholders sit outside of SA can decide it is cheaper and better to leave South Australians in the dark rather than turn the generator on and be directed is appalling. You are looking to increase gas and coal-fired power in SA both with the emergency government one, but also with the private ones that are already up and running. What are you going to fill these with, though, because the gas market is already incredibly tight? There are a couple of things that we are doing. SA is awash with gas, but of course moratoriums on the Eastern Seaboards and again poor national policy is showing a lot of our gas is being locked up, whether it is through environmental movements or just simply through a lot of these companies being cash-contrained and not being able to invest. We have got a PACE gas program, we will partner directly with oil and gas companies to go out and explore for gas. If they use our money to explore for that gas and they find gas we will have first call on that gas and we will be asking that gas to be used in South Australian generation first and then for South Australian industry and then for South Australian business. Is that, essentially, a reservation policy? If they use their own money they can send it wherever they like, but if they are spending our money we will have the first call on where the gas goes. More importantly, we will be offering a royalty sharing program and return program. Landowners across SA, if gas is discovered on their land, we will share our royalties with them. Up to 10% will go to landowners who own freehold property in is productive oil and gas wells on their land. That should help unleash a lot of gas into the South Australian market and I assault on other jurisdictions across the country to do the same. A key part of the plan today was calling again for a carbon price.

for a carbon price.
What makes you sure that this issue is palatable to voters now? APRA put out a statement last week saying that boards and directors across Australia, if they didn't take into account club policy in their decision making, they could be held personally responsible for that decision making. What that basically means is until there is national leadership, they have factored in a price on carbon and they won't invest in this so-called clean-coal technology, which is a myth that the Prime Minister and his Energy Minister are sprouting. Currently there, is no carbon price, so the question for the Prime Minister and the Energy Minister to answer is: Where are the new coal generators? Where are they? We have lost 5,000 megawatts of generation and Hazelwood is about to close because it is very, very old. Where is the new investment? Where are the private equity funds rushing to clamour to invest on the Prime Minister's vision for new coal generation in Australia? Tom Koutsantonis, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. The Federal Government has slammed the South Australian plan as "problematic". The Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg says that SA is causing more problems than it is solving by breaking away from the rules governing the national electricity market. Going it alone created SA's problems. Going it alone won't fix SA's problems. In fact, the measures announced today will only increase electricity prices for Australians and has the potential to increase prices for Victorians, for people in New South Wales and in Tasmania. He says the Commonwealth is seeking legal advice about the move. Meanwhile, big hitters in business have welcomed SA's plans. BHP Billiton which has major operations including Olympic Dam in the States says: Well, the Queensland premier

Well, the Queensland premier and delegation of mayors are in India this week lobbying the Adani Group to give the Greenpeace light to one of the world's biggest coal mines in North Queensland. If the project does go ahead, the Adani Group will be able to shift up to $3 billion in revenue from the Carmichael coal mine into a company owned in the Cayman Islands. It is the outcome of what one critic calls a third-world pyramid structure that allows the family-controlled Adani Group to shift assets at will. Stephen Long has this exclusive story. The site of what would be Australia's biggest coal mine and buried in the fine print of company accounts, is the story of where the money goes. The upshot for this Adani family is that if the mine goes ahead, they receive up to $3 billion via the Cayman Islands's tax haven. It is the outcome of a complex corporate web set up for Adani's Australian operations. The mine itself is owned by a company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, but a separate company has an overarching right to royalties worth about $120 million a year, rising annually by the inflation rate for the first two decades of production. That company is controlled by Atoulia Resources, an Adani family entity registered in the Cayman Islands tax haven. It doesn't matter if the mine loses money. The economics of this mine is a question of perspective. If you are the Adani family, it appears that even if this mine is not making a profit, in terms of generating profit through the publicly owned companies, you could still be profiting to the tune of up to $3 billion from it. The Adani family are ensuring their interests are protected, but no-one else's are. The Resources Minister has been assured it is all perfectly legal and Adani says that the company assigned the multibillion-dollar royalty right is Australian registered and subject to all applicable taxes and charges. The money would move in more complex ways than the Tax Office itself could monitor. How Adani acquired the royalty right is a story in itself. They brought the rights to the coal deposit there off Linc Energy. Now, the transaction was for a fixed sum of money up front, plus a $2 a tonne royalty right. But, in dire financial straights four years ago, Linc Energy sold the $3 billion royalty stream back to Adani for a fire sell price, $150 million. What would have made sense is for that royalty right to be extinguished at that point. The Adani Mining Company the proposal to build the mine, they could have got rid of this future liability. However, that is not what happened. Instead, the rights to $2 per tonne was transferred to an Adani family company, which is owned via the Cayman Islands tax haven. Dr Thomas Clarke has been a corporate governance expert for decades. When I showed him the complex web that Adani has set up for its Australian operations, he's concerned. It is a classic third-world corporate structure. The Adani family interests dominate the whole structure. These are offshore-owned companies and private companies which are the private property of the Adani family. The worry is that this could just be the beginning that the Adani have the power to shift cash or other assets around at will and that they may well do so in future in their own interests and at the cost of the shareholders and the Queensland economy. Adani is seeking $1 billion government subsidy to build a railway for the mine. Yet, behind the railway is the very company with rights to the lucrative royalty stream. One of the same group of companies that is seeking $1 billion in public subsidy to build a rail line to link