ENERGY POLICY

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (15:19): The Premier, earlier today, suggested wrongly to the house that the opposition had not released as much policy as the government. It incites me to remind the house that we have put out a very thorough energy policy, and, in the absence of an energy policy from the government, I am quite enjoying a little exchange, through grieves, with the Minister for Energy, because he keeps wanting to bring attention to our excellent policy announced by the leader a few weeks ago, and in particular, point No. 1, which is that reform to the national regulatory arrangements will be vital to getting our prices and costs down for households and small business.

He keeps reminding the house that, under his government, prices have gone up by 133 per cent. Thank Heaven they do not own the electricity assets, or it might be like our water assets, where prices have gone up by 257 per cent. Imagine if they owned the electricity assets; we might have another 100 per cent worth of increases. But since the Minister for Energy is so kindly obliging me with this, it gives us a chance to again repeat the soundness of our energy policy, because unless the government and the minister embrace the Productivity Commission's recommendations about regulatory reform, we will not be able to get prices under control, or ultimately get them down.

That is why it is so mysterious that the minister has been running around, trying to convince journalists and stakeholders that those of us on this side of the house, who actually privatised our assets so that things could be run more efficiently, are somehow planning a secret nationalisation of those assets—we want to buy them back, he says, for $7 billion. Of course, that is completely false and laughable. I am getting calls from journalists and stakeholders laughing their heads off at the stupidity of the proposition he is putting.

If it had come from him, well, maybe it would be understandable, because he argued against privatisation, but I am glad he has now become an advocate for privatisation. In his grieve yesterday and in his public utterances on Sunday, he said, in effect, that it is really sound that these assets are owned by the private enterprise sector, because it would be most unwise for the government to nationalise or buy them back at a cost of $7 billion. Suddenly, the minister has become one of the best advocates around for the fact that our electricity assets are in private hands.

Of course, he goes on to misrepresent—fortunately, because it gives me a chance to clarify the situation and promote our policy—our position on regulatory reform; it could not have been any clearer. I do not know if the minister did English in high school, but I doubt it, because we say this: we will use the Standing Council of Energy and Resources (the SCER) to advocate as a matter of urgency—advocate—

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I understand that the member for Waite just accused one of the ministers of misrepresenting some facts; I would have thought that was something that should have been subject of a motion, rather than a claim.

The SPEAKER: Could the member for Waite repeat his words?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No, I said he is misrepresenting our policy, and I am explaining why, sir.

The SPEAKER: And do you think he misrepresented it here in the chamber or outside?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I am explaining my point, sir; I would ask you and the house to listen.

The SPEAKER: Well, where did this alleged misrepresentation occur?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It has occurred in the media, it has occurred here yesterday in a grieve, and I am clarifying the situation. As far as I am concerned, Mr Speaker, it would be extraordinary—

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Ashford can cast light on this?

The Hon. S.W. KEY: No, I have a different point of order.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —and I would ask that the clock be held while—

The SPEAKER: Yes, you will get your time on.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, thank you. Mr Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I will look at the Hansard, and if the member for Waite made an imputation that the Minister for Transport deliberately misled the house, I will return—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Hang on; why?

The SPEAKER: Well, because you cannot do that.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Mr Speaker, as far as I am aware, it would be extraordinary were you to rule that, if anyone in this house claimed someone else had misrepresented the facts on a matter, it was unparliamentary. No-one used the words 'mislead the house'. This is amazing. If that was the case, we might as well close down parliamentary debate, sir—

The SPEAKER: Yes—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —because that is what goes on here every day of the week.

The SPEAKER: I agree with that, and that is why I will look at the words. I think the member for Waite is entitled, under the rules, to accuse the minister of misrepresenting in the abstract. If he accused him of misrepresenting to the house, that would be a different matter. But, before the member for Waite resumes—he is getting full time on, and indeed I will, as I usually do, let him talk beyond the final siren—the member for Ashford has a point of order.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: I have a different point of order. I was concerned that the member for Waite accused the minister of not doing English at high school, and I am just wondering whether or not he is having a go at the minister having a Greek origin.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Come on!

The Hon. S.W. Key: —because you've done it before.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Rubbish, absolute rubbish!

The Hon. S.W. Key: You have done it before.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I'm married to a Greek, Steph. Don't be stupid. It's a stupid thing for you to say.

The Hon. S.W. Key: I know that, but you do it all the time.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You're better than that. You are better than that, Steph.

The SPEAKER: If the member for Waite would care to address the concern of the member for Ashford, I will give him extra time to do it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I will push on with the issue and the substance of the matter, sir, because what our policy says is that we will use the Standing Council on Energy and Resources to advocate as a matter of urgency for the regulatory reforms identified in the Productivity Commission's report 2013. I then name the report, the electricity network regulation report, etc. Then I go on to list and outline what is in the Productivity Commission's report, which includes changes to state regulatory arrangements and network business ownerships.

Clearly, if you read the report, and I would hope that the minister and others have, it refers to New South Wales and Queensland, where assets are still owned by the government, creating a conflict, which is a massive imposition on regulatory reform. But if you read what the minister has said on the matter, you will see he is trying to turn that into some sort of an effort to nationalise assets here in South Australia.

It is just such a ridiculous proposition. It has journalists laughing, it has stakeholders laughing, and it exposes the minister's lack of understanding of regulatory reform. To even propose that the party that was a leader in privatising would reverse that is just silly. It might be the sort of silly action you would expect from a Labor government, but not from one on this side, but it does highlight just how difficult it is.

When a minister says you are plagiarising a report, which you acknowledge and refer to as a precursor to your comments, and when the minister just so misunderstands or misrepresents the argument you are putting in your policy, it explains why our electricity prices are so high: it is simply because this government has not embraced regulatory reform. It does not understand what the Productivity Commission is saying.

We are committed to acting on the Productivity Commission's recommendations, which is the first part of our policy, and we list them and acknowledge fully that is where they are from. We will be advocating and not trying to force Queensland and New South Wales through the SCER to free up their asset ownership because only then will we get the sort of regulatory reform that can get prices down.

I would commend that the minister to deal with the substance of issues and not try to win his argument by being belligerent, by misrepresenting or by showing testosterone. Intellect ahead of testosterone is a very good attribute for a minister.

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Florey, who I hope will improve on the civility of grievance debate thus far.