Electricity Industry Privatisation

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Despite all his dithering on the issue, will he confirm that the only reason he has finally done the right thing and agreed to the Liberal-Nationals community safeguards for power privatisation is that he wants to escape a humiliating defeat at the hands of his own members of Parliament?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We have called the bluff of the Leader of the Opposition. We are getting him into a position that he has not been good at dealing with—that is, stating a policy position. This will also deny him the luxury of having it both ways. He cannot say in his reply to the budget one year ago that he will do what Peter Beattie did—that is, dispose of retail—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He cannot pretend he did not say that in his speech in reply to the budget. The Government will also not allow the Leader of the Opposition to get away with saying for the following four months that the Opposition could not make a decision on where it stood until it saw some details—it might support the move or it might not. Members opposite really did not know. It was all summed up in the interview with Mike Carlton about a month ago. The Leader of the Opposition might want to refresh his memory of his interview.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I include the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Calm down, Barry. As we have said—

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. All members who have been called to order are now deemed to be on three calls to order. We will hear the Premier's responses in silence. That courtesy will be extended to every member speaking. Members will continue to observe that protocol.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition issued a press statement supporting the lease of the retail and generation arms with five conditions. The first condition was that there would be a social safety net.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: No!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes. We announced that in December. Wake up! He also wanted a community impact statement. Having undertaken an impact statement process, we were more than happy to undertake the consultation outlined. He also wanted the green energy fund announced in December expanded as a result of the Unsworth findings. As indicated the day after we found out that he had finally reached a position on securing the State's energy supplies, the Government is more than happy to accommodate the green energy fund. The initiative was announced in December and added to as a result of the Unsworth inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition also wanted specific mention of pensioner rebates. They were already announced. He also wanted the involvement of the Auditor-General. Yes, the Government supports the Auditor-General's involvement in the process.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. If that is the case, why did you not agree to it seven months ago?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time. His conduct is inappropriate.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition wants to play silly games about the technical aspects of the Auditor-General's powers. The Government will not accommodate him and have a silly game about whether the Auditor-General has that power at the end or the beginning of the process. We have always said that we have no difficulty with the Auditor-General being involved. If that requires an amendment to his powers the necessary legislation will be introduced. If the legislation provides that he can be involved only at the end of the process and we want his involvement at the beginning, why not amend it?

The Opposition will not have the luxury of having it both ways. It was a reasonable request, and the Government has met the reasonable request to thrash out the detail of what Auditor-General involvement requires or means—dot point No. 1 of the five dot points. The other dot points, as we have indicated, we are already doing or we are happy to expand. Why would we not provide protection for pensioners? That is what the package involves and that was expanded by the Unsworth committee. Of course, when undertaking energy reform you would have investment banking, research and development, and projects in renewable energy and burning-coal cleanup. That is why we have done the deal with the coal industry. There is a tax on coal, and part of it goes into a coal fund to support research and to back projects in burning-coal cleanup.

The other green funds all go into backing wind and solar projects. That is where some of the proceeds will go, into clean and greener energy. The Opposition requires comfort that the Government is doing what was in the original package, expanded on by Unsworth. Of course we would. Why not? We are not going to stop there in investing in cleaner, greener sources of energy, nor will we back away from providing protection for the most vulnerable in our community. That is why we have people like Jeff Angel and Harry Herbert on the Unsworth committee. So, each of the five points have been met: each of the five points the Government was already doing. Or we have fleshed out the detail about the Auditor-General and not allowed the technical aspects of the legislation, which only allows him to be involved at the end, to prevent his involvement upfront, right at the beginning.