House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time AGL AGL Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly MacKillop AGL Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (14:43): Does the Minister for Energy think that the AGL contract with the state government is good for South Australia given his previous statements regarding the company? The Minister for Energy was reported in The Advertiser on 8 September 2006 as stating: It's cold-blooded and I've got a big message for AGL and its customers. There's plenty of electricity companies in South Australia now. He went on to say: I'm with AGL and I won't be for very much longer. The Essential Services Commission can help people pick the retailer they'd like. The day before, the minister was also reported in The Advertiser as describing AGL as 'callous' and 'disloyal'. The minister urged South Australians to 'use their judgment' and not buy power from AGL. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly Elder Minister for Transport Minister for Infrastructure Minister for Energy The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:44): Let me explain what happened at the time: what I said, what I meant, what I did and what has changed. At the time, AGL under its new chief executive—I cannot remember his name, but I certainly did not like him or the way he did business. He flew into town, no notice, nothing at all and, despite talking to the government just a week before, sacked 300 people and flew out again. Now, I thought it was callous. I thought the way they did it was unnecessary and weak. I said that I was appalled by it, that I had an AGL contract and that I was going to get out of it. As soon as I could get out of it without paying them any extra money I was out of it. I think I am with Origin now, not that I am giving any recommendation for Origin. Let me tell members something else that has happened since then. I do not know whether or not the AGL board agreed with me, but the fellow who did that does not run the place any more and they now have a new chief executive. It is a company that members opposite must have loved because, despite promising to introduce competition, they sold the entire government retail business to them—despite promising to create competition. It is the power of one in competition. I believe that, at least at that level, its approach to those sorts of decisions is completely different from that of the previous management. I am not condoning them in any other aspect of their business, but I can tell members that in that part of it they now want to talk regularly to us about the decisions they will make. In fact, one of the good things that came out of that sad period is that we picked up a government employee and an energy ombudsman from AGL because they did not really like the way in which things were going under the previous management—but that is a matter for AGL. When we go out to buy an electricity contract, we do not go out and say, 'I like you and I don't like you.' The Auditor-General would not like that. We set up a process and go to the marketplace and judge it against objective criteria. That may be different from the way in which members opposite did the water contract. We did not have a camera run out of film in the relevant office at the time someone was putting in a bid after the bids had closed and the probity auditor had left the building. That may be the way you do things, but the way we do things is to go to the marketplace on a tender and judge it on objective criteria. It does not come to cabinet and we say, 'Well, you won it on your merits, but we don't like AGL so we are giving it to someone else.' That would be appalling. If that is how they suggest they will do business if they are ever the government, then thank God they are not likely to be the government for a very long time. I think opposition members need to have a chat with the Auditor-General about how these things are done. What they are suggesting is that we should give government contracts to people we like and not the people we don't like. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I made it absolutely clear at the time that people decide who they pick as a retailer, but I also made it clear that they are entitled to take into account the behaviour of that company. There is greater freedom in an individual picking a contract than there is with a government. One of the reasons we have probity auditors and other people do not is because we are expected to be an exemplar in this—and we are. Ms Chapman interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I cannot understand why her party does not support her. She is an expert on everything. She interjects on every subject. Why won't they recognise her greatness? Why did she slide down instead of up? I do not understand it. It is just not fair. We give contracts to the best bid on objective criteria, not to the people we like the look of and not to people we don't like the look of. That is not how it is done and it is not how it will be done.