BG Group Origin Energy Acquisition

Mr ANDREW FRASER: My question is directed to the Premier. How can the Premier stand by his Treasurer's more than $15 billion price tag on the sale of New South Wales electricity assets when rating agencies have described the impact of the BG Group Origin Energy acquisition as removing competitive tension and reducing the probability of success, and creating a glut of assets on the market?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: BG taking over Origin is a matter for it.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Coffs Harbour wants to know what the position was with regard to Origin. Origin was one of those companies that had already secured its funding and finance to make future investments. It has a choice: it could invest in infrastructure in New South Wales or, because it has secured it, it could undertake those investments in South Australia, Victoria or Queensland. It would be one of the companies potentially interested in the retail businesses. There is no secret about that; the market knows that. The market knows also that it had acted at some time to get its finance. So, it got the dollars and now it is looking for the projects and opportunities to make those investments. They are the simple facts; it has been on the record for some time. Opposition members might have come to the issue yesterday or this morning while flicking through a newspaper, but anybody who has followed this issue or who has taken an interest in it would have known that for some time.

So what point is the member for Coffs Harbour trying to make? Is he trying to undermine the New South Wales electricity industry, as the previous question attempted? What is it? Is he trying to say that buying it out will somehow jeopardise a list of companies that might be interested in the retail business? If that is the case, has he asked his leader about the implications of the takeover? A year ago the Opposition said that it would dispose of electricity. Before the member for Coffs Harbour asked me about the impact of one company taking over another—shock, horror; as if that does not happen—and before the question was written and given to him, did he lean across to Barry and say, "Before I make a fool of myself and get up and ask this question, what does this mean for our policy? Should I ask this question?"

The member has cottoned on to the fact that one company out there might be a potential buyer. Gee whiz! Wow! That question is about as good as the previous one about the potential value impact on a national emissions trading scheme. Of course, that ignores a simple fact: there has been a report since then. It is called the Garnaut report—I do not know whether those opposite have read it. As to the previous question, the biggest impact will be on the Victorian generators and the Victorian electricity industry, not those in New South Wales. Why? It is because the New South Wales generators have a much higher order of priority on the national grid than Victoria. New South Wales, because it is coal fired, is more efficient than Victoria. So the impact on New South Wales is much less. Those opposite should go back and read the Garnaut report—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order for the second time.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The troglodyte should go back to his cave.