HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-02-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

State Assets (Privatisation Restrictions) Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the State Assets (Privatisation Restriction) Bill, which was moved in the other place by the Hon. Robert Simms MLC. The bill seeks to prevent the sale, disposal and lease of certain state-owned assets. The government amended the bill in the other place to make the Economic and Finance Committee the responsible committee and supported the passage of the bill as amended. I foreshadow I will be making some amendments today, specifically to add SA Pathology to the list of entities in the bill, and removing the words 'and an asset' as an ambiguity. We thank the Hon. Robert Simms in the other place for his willingness to work with the government on this.

This is an important bill, particularly in the context of recent state elections. While the bill focuses on particular entities of the state government, including HomeStart Finance, the Lifetime Support Authority of South Australia, the Motor Accident Commission, the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia, South Australian Water Corporation and the Superannuation Funds Management Corporation of South Australia, also known as Funds SA, and an asset prescribed by regulation, members would also be aware that the topic of privatisation has been topical in South Australian politics at election time.

At the most recent state election, the now Labor government went with an agenda strongly against privatisation. We promised to take back control of our trains and trams, and we have already made significant progress in delivering on that election commitment. South Australians would be aware, of course, that the privatisation of the Electricity Trust of South Australia was one of the most egregious and worst examples of privatisation to the detriment of all South Australians, but particularly electricity consumers, that we have seen in the history of our state.

It is particularly topical because at the 2018 state election there was a candidate for Premier, the former member for Dunstan as leader of the then Liberal opposition. He committed, on live television, that the Liberals had no privatisation agenda. After the election, in which the Liberals were successful, of course nothing could have been further from the truth.

In the very first budget, the then Liberal government announced they would be privatising the Adelaide Remand Centre. This was quickly followed up by the privatisation of hospital patient transfers amongst key health locations. The former Liberal government privatised the state's backup generators, which had been specifically procured to provide South Australians with energy security.

The former Liberal government also privatised the tram network, the train network, and the management of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure's building maintenance service. Of course, the former Liberal government also privatised regional road maintenance. The former Treasurer, Rob Lucas, also issued a direct threat to SA Pathology, saying that if they were not capable of delivering swingeing savings then they would also be privatised. That sounds like a pretty clear privatisation agenda to me.

As they were by many of the behaviours of the previous Liberal government, South Australians were absolutely horrified that such bold election commitments could be broken so readily and so repeatedly by the Liberals in South Australia.

It was only because of the outbreak of COVID that the former Liberal government finally saw sense and halted not only the savings plans but the privatisation plans of SA Pathology. That is why, in the amendment I will be seeking to move during the next stage of this bill, the Labor government has included SA Pathology in the list of state government entities prescribed in the Hon. Mr Simms' bill.

It is worth bearing in mind that while those opposite, the South Australian Liberals, claim they have had an about-face on privatisation, that they no longer support privatisation—probably because they realise how damaging it is to the interests of those people who use those services—you do not have to scratch too deep to find that privatisation, amongst those opposite, still remains a favoured way of managing services in the community. Liberals in the other place, when speaking on this bill, said:

Privatisation is not always the enemy, like it is often portrayed. I think it is worth mentioning that privatising state-owned assets is not always about money. Privatising has the potential to improve services for South Australians, creating jobs and encouraging competition in the market.

In other forums, members of the opposition continue to defend the former Marshall Liberal government's privatisation of government assets. For example, shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, the member for Hartley, said, 'Despite Labor's smoke and mirrors South Australians have received a better service at a lower cost over the last two years.'

I wonder if the residents of Grange felt that way when, not too long ago, a train operated by a private provider barrelled through the end of the rail line on the Grange extension and straight over Military Road before coming to rest. If this is the benefit of privatisation those opposite seek to highlight for the benefit South Australians, it is clear they need to reconsider their views.

Perhaps, of course, the best and most obvious poor example of privatisation is, as I mentioned before, that of the Electricity Trust of South Australia. We remember that, under the deal reached by the Liberals while in government, after I think promising prior to the election that they would never ever privatise ETSA, straight after the election they set about doing just that. Gee, doesn't history repeat when it comes to those opposite.

Under the terms of that deal, electricity prices were to be held at no more than CPI increases for the first year before full market pricing took over. What happened? I think in that first market pricing round electricity prices went up by more than 20 per cent, and that trend has not halted since. While those opposite might say that privatisation encourages competition, of course their version of privatisation is to hand over these important services, often to sole suppliers within a market, and watch them run rampant over the interests of consumers.

I do not stand here pretending that previous Labor governments have not privatised assets: of course both sides have been engaged in this practice over the last 30 years—I do not shy away from that. But I think it is pretty hard to find an example worse than those opposite in what they have committed in terms of acts of privatisation and what the impact on customers has been.

We welcome this bill because it will now mean that, if and when those opposite ever return to the Treasury benches, should they seek to return to form and start listing government entities and assets for privatisation, they will now face the full scrutiny of parliament and require the full approval of parliament before those plans can be put into effect. That, of course, is absolutely crucial.

Just to explain further the other part of the amendment that the government has sought: it effectively was to reduce a potential conflict within the bill. In the bill, Mr Simms has ascribed a number of public financial corporations, including HomeStart, the Superannuation Funds Management Corporation of South Australia, ReturnToWorkSA and the South Australian Financing Authority.

These organisations of course engage in very significant transactions on a very regular basis, and we were concerned that, while the bill precluded the 'privatisation' of an asset, despite later in the bill saying that the day-to-day ordinary course of business or regular day-to-day operations would not be affected, there was likely to be a tension between those two parts of the bill in allowing, I guess, the regular operations of those entities but also the parliament having certainty as to what could or could not be done by those.

We are not seeking to do anything nefarious or, should I say, 'Liberal like' with the assets of these entities, but just to make sure that when, for example, there are multi-billion dollar transactions, which occur from time to time, particularly in the South Australian Financing Authority or the Superannuation Funds Management Corporation of South Australia, as either debt is raised or assets are placed on the markets for investments or retrieved from the markets following investments, that they are not unfortunately and unintentionally captured by the process of this bill.

I am of course looking forward to the fulsome support of the entire chamber. We hope those opposite have seen the error of their ways of the past. As I have admitted, while previous Labor governments from time to time have also seen operations outsourced—for example, the Lotteries Commission of South Australia or the forward sale of rotations of the forests and so on—I think there is good enough reason for this bill to garner the support of both sides of the chamber.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (10:44): I rise today as the lead speaker for the opposition in regard to this private member's bill, the State Assets (Privatisation Restrictions) Bill 2022. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill.

Before we get to the substantive aspects of this bill, I think it is important to note that it does appear in some way, shape or form that the government has run out of ideas or their own agenda, not even halfway into their term. The fact that we passed a Liberal bill last week during private members' time and will now be passing a Greens bill this week I think says more about the state of the legislative agenda on that side of the house than anything else.

Really, the crux of this issue is that, if we are going to look at the biggest threat to privatisation of state assets, that threat is not on this side of the house; it is sitting on the Treasurer's own front bench. If we go back over a time line of the major privatisations that have occurred under the Rann-Weatherill government—and I will just address the Rann-Weatherill government specifically—we had ForestrySA privatised in October 2012, SA Lotteries privatised in November 2013, the Motor Accident Commission privatised in 2014 and announced in the state budget of 2014, and the Lands Titles Office privatised in 2017.

I have run through that time line—not the specifics of the months but the years—when in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2017 those major privatisations occurred, those being ForestrySA, SA Lotteries, the Motor Accident Commission and the Lands Titles Office. If we look back, what is quite interesting is to note on the Treasurer's own website his role at the time while some of those privatisations were occurring. It has listed that the Treasurer:

…served as the Deputy Chief of Staff to the South Australian Premier and Treasurer, Hon Jay Weatherill MP, from 2013 to 2014. During this time Mr Mullighan was responsible for several key policy areas including budget development, taxation policy…

And a range of other things.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr COWDREY: The question only needs to be asked: was the Treasurer involved with those privatisations at that point in time? We will not be taking the clear hypocrisy, the holier than thou attitude, from those opposite. We will be supporting the bill and there is little more to it than that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (10:47): I rise to talk a little bit about history in South Australia. If you do a wiki search on privatisation of government assets in Australia, the first thing that pops up is the Hawke-Keating government and Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank: two massive Australian icons privatised by the Keating government, with Keating as Treasurer and Bob Hawke as the government.

There is also a paper here that I want to use this opportunity to correct. It was put out by the Public Service Association of South Australia, dated August 2021. It refers to the sale of the South Australian Gas Company. In its brief overview of privatisation issues in South Australia, it states:

The privatisation of public assets/utilities in South Australia began under the Brown and Olsen…governments…These include SA Gas Company…

This is the rewriting of history. On 16 July, Andrew White wrote in the Financial Review that:

The South Australian Government has tried to hose down concerns within the Labor Party that its plan to sell a controlling interest in Sagasco Holdings Ltd is part of a new privatisation agenda.

So this is the extent that the Labor Party and the friends of the Labor Party go to to rewrite history. The facts are that John Bannon was still Premier at that time.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: He was still Premier at that time, yes, and I was running a business during a recession we had to have—that Paul Keating said we had to have. Believe me, it was very hard—

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Florey!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —selling furniture, selling discretionary items with 17 per cent interest rates and a recession that we had to have that was brought on by Paul Keating. That was, I think, a $3 billion disaster, the State Bank here in South Australia, and the first resolution that John Bannon had was to sell the government's controlling interest in the South Australian Gas Company.

It is interesting how things change over time, because that was obviously a privatisation policy of the then Labor government. I can remember Lynn Arnold was the Premier when the cheque was handed over. I can vividly recall that image of him on the television news holding the cheque up and showing the people of South Australia he had the money from SAGASCO to start paying off the debt of the State Bank. It was pitiful, actually, absolutely pitiful.

I was really only a member of the Liberal Party with not as much knowledge, of course, of politics as you acquire as you become professional in the field, but even then as a layperson I could see that that was not a solution for the billions of dollars that was lost in the State Bank. What has also changed over that period—there is a quote here:

The left-wing Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union has a motion calling for the sale to be overturned, in a move which could embarrass the Government or result in strict conditions being placed on the sale, which could affect its sale price.

The assistant secretary of the…[union], Mr Russell Wortley—

that is the left-wing union Russell Wortley was in; of course, Russell is not in the left anymore, but he is in parliament with that switch to the right and in parliament for 24 years now with that switch. He:

…conceded that Sagasco was a public company, but said its monopoly over the gas market in SA represented a public service which should not be controlled by the private sector.

So as you can see, you learn from history. We learn that even the Public Service Association gets things wrong in material it puts out to push its agenda. I was pleased to take the opportunity to correct the record for the people of South Australia and the Public Service Association on who was responsible for the sale of SAGASCO.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (10:53): I was about to say I always enjoy the contributions of the member for Unley, but I cannot say that, because he always ends up unreasonably whacking a trade union, those people who are engaged—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —to represent the interests of workers. I know how distasteful that is to some of those opposite. As I said in my—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order from the member for Unley.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I believe that the minister is invoking improper motives. I simply referred to Russell Wortley, who at that time was not an honourable but a member of a left-wing union. I did not say anything derogatory about Mr Wortley or his union, and the minister is simply using it as an opportunity to impute improper motives.

The SPEAKER: Very well. I have the point of order. I understand that the member for Unley is inviting the Treasurer to withdraw and apologise.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Of course, I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker. Despite his reflections in this place, I know that he can have a constitution as delicate as the rest of us when it comes to these matters. What I was actually referring to was nothing to do with the Hon. Mr Wortley but the member for Unley's reflection on the Public Service Association of South Australia in his comments.

I find it regrettable that a former minister and a senior member of this parliament and member of the opposition would seek to reflect on the Public Service Association that way, but it is the state parliament and we are free, within the confines of the standing orders, to say what we will to best represent those interests that we believe we each reflect. Once again, the member for Unley has made his interests in this area clear.

I did, of course, say that over the last 30 years—and we can go back even longer than that because there have been privatisations in South Australia over a longer period. The member for Unley talks about the South Australian Gas Company (SAGASCO), and we could also reflect on when the TAB was sold for less money than it earned in a year. What a privatisation; what an extraordinary deal that was.

Unfortunately, for the people of South Australia, it is no laughing matter that these state-owned assets, often profitable trading enterprises, are privatised. Rather than the foreshadowed improvement in trading outcomes, it is usually consumers who get it in the neck. Notwithstanding those comments, I welcome the support of those opposite for this bill because would it not be the most extraordinary demonstration of a political party having a tin ear to the interests of the electorate should they oppose this bill?

Just to finish, I do not resile one iota from my CV. I was proud to be the deputy chief of staff to the former Premier Jay Weatherill, the former member for Cheltenham. He worked extraordinarily hard for the interests of South Australia, and I was particularly pleased to work with him in the lead-up to the 2014 campaign because those opposite, indeed many in the community, had written off Jay Weatherill at that election, that he was not able to win.

He worked so incredibly hard, not only putting forward policies that would benefit our state and the people of South Australia but showing the contrast between him and his political opponents. Of course, that election came right down to the wire, all the way until we were sitting there watching the nightly news. We were watching the final press conference of the then Leader of the Opposition, the former member for Dunstan, and he said, 'Well, if you want jobs in this state, if you want economic growth, then there is only one choice at the ballot box tomorrow, and that's: vote Labor.' I was pleased to be part of the team that even convinced the former member for Dunstan what the right choice was in 2014.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 2, lines 13 and 14 [clause 2, definition of state-owned asset]—Delete 'and an asset'

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 2, after line 23 [clause 2, definition of state-owned asset]—After paragraph (d) insert:

(da) SA Pathology;

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (3 and 4) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (11:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT