Download Fragment

Monday, 4 July 2011
Page: 7454

Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (11:53): I listened carefully to the contribution by the member for Grey. He is a neighbour of mine. We share a common border and, I think, for many of my rural residents and many of his, we share some common interests, although we do not always agree on every issue. I think he is a somewhat myopic representative. He is very diligent in putting the views of his constituents as he sees them. The member for Grey did not really give the broader environment in which South Australia finds itself or the South Australian government's significant achievements much of a fair go. I think he was being a little critical and perhaps a little partisan.

Obviously South Australia has had significant success over the last few years. We have an exploration boom which will, I think, in time turn into a mining boom. That will have significant advantages for the state, and we hope that it has significant advantages for the whole state. Similarly, we have added to our defence industries. We have a state that now more than ever before has life in the city and life spilling out into the suburbs and into the country towns. There are things like the Adelaide Fringe festival and the V8 car race, which I heard the member for Grey refer to, and the trams. They do not just benefit city folk.

Mr Ramsey interjecting—

Mr CHAMPION: It is often possible for people in the northern suburbs to say the same sorts of things: 'I don't go to the car racing or the oval.' But they do go to the upgraded Lyell McEwin Hospital. It is possible to say that the state overall has gotten a lot better over the last eight years. I think that we have had a pretty good government. When history comes to make a judgment on Premier Rann and his government, it will say that it was almost the perfect synthesis between the legacies of Playford and Dunstan. We have had a government that has changed the economic basis of South Australia by promoting mineral exploration and the defence industries while still maintaining a significant manufacturing base. Similarly, we have had the best of Dunstan's social reforms in that we now have a city that is alive and vibrant and an arts community that is alive and vibrant. I do think that it really is a choice between having the symphony orchestra or having electricity subsidies. But budgets are always an exercise in choice.

There is no doubt that, because of the global financial crisis, things are different. We have seen the effects of that around the world, with six million jobs lost. Despite what the opposition says, there has been a significant change to both employment and credit conditions across the world. That has impacted on government budgets. And it often has pretty tragic impacts on business. Things do need to be reviewed. I do not think that the member for Gray really gave the South Australian government's changes on 14 May much credit. But there has been a sincere effort made to reduce the impact of these higher bills, which only apply to large consumers; they do not apply to average consumers under this scheme. There has been an attempt to phase this in to allow people more time to make adjustments. And those adjustments can be significant. Obviously, there are new technologies now that can significantly lower power bills through alternative generation and also through efficiency. So it seems to me that there has been a sincere attempt made to lessen the impact of this change on large consumers under this scheme.

This is a 15-year-old subsidy program. It is important to note that subsidies do not come for free. Other taxpayers pay for them. While the member for Gray talks about the fact that every other electricity consumer has the same deal as the city, I do not think that that is true. I have many country constituents who burn thousands of dollars of diesel every vintage season or every time their business has an upturn because they cannot connect to the grid because of the excessive costs that you get charged to connect to the grid now. That is a very big problem for regional growth and one that has not been well-thought through or talked about.

We have to acknowledge that subsidy programs cost everybody. I notice that this subsidy program provides basically triple the metropolitan domestic tariff. I know that the member for Gray would say that it needs to be. I know that he says that people in Cooper Pedy produce wealth for the state. I acknowledge that. But I have metropolitan constituents, particularly in the northern suburbs, who create most of the state's wealth and most of the state's exports. And yet no-one would expect—

Mr Ramsey: It's well subsidised, Nick, don't worry about that; it's well subsidised.

Mr CHAMPION: That is not true. We have many horticultural businesses and one of the lowest tariff regimes for cars in the world. We have horticultural exports. We have defence exports. The northern suburbs exports a lot more than just cars. You should acknowledge that we are really the engine room for South Australia. We produce most of the wealth of the state and we do not get much credit for it. I remember that the Olsen government promised just before an election never to privatise electricity—of course, they did. Consumers in my electorate suffered price rises of up to 30 per cent.

Mr Ramsey interjecting—

Mr CHAMPION: That had a very big effect, and we can go back and debate the merits of privatisation and debt recovery versus higher prices and the like, but the one thing that was not done for the state by Country Liberals during that period was to provide any sort of universal service obligation on our electricity producers. It was forced on the federal Liberals by the National Party during the Telstra privatisation, but there was absolutely no attempt to look after country residents during the electricity privatisation. There was absolutely no attempt to make sure that in the future—10, 15, 20 years down the track—the provision of essential electricity infrastructure would be there for towns like Clare or Balaklava or even for areas closer to the city. In my electorate there are many country businesses which face significant costs to get connected to the grid, but no Country Liberal looked after them when the privatisation went through.

It is a very big problem for both parties, to be fair, but it is not something that is well talked about. It is not true to say that just the people of Coober Pedy or other towns affected by this particular subsidy program have been affected. Everybody outside the metropolitan area, and even some people in the outer suburbs, have been affected by the changes to our electricity network. I think that if the member for Grey were being a little bit more sincere he would acknowledge that fact and have a look at proposing that perhaps there should be a bit of cross-party lobbying for any future South Australian government to set up some obligations. As I said, I have constituents who burn $50,000 or $60,000 worth of diesel every year during vintage season. That is mainly because of privatisation issues.

Opposition members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Members on my left will cease interjecting!

Mr CHAMPION: You have got to give me a chance to finish, Member for Grey. Obviously, no one likes to see subsidies withdrawn. The truth is: subsidies are pretty intoxicating. Governments of all persuasions need to be pretty careful about subsidies, because once they are in place they are very difficult to remove and very difficult to review. It is not a partisan thing; I think the whole body politic, perhaps, is a little enamoured of subsidies—the public is as well. We really have to run a much stronger public interest test across all of them before we introduce them. If we continue with the current view on subsidies—including those available under 'direct action', which would be an orgy of picking winners, an orgy of public money going to the private sector—if we are not very careful about this, if this and other parliaments around the country are not open and honest about the costs of such subsidies and apply a far more rigorous public interest test, the country will be poorer. For this reason, the South Australian government and its KPMG review should be applauded and not condemned. (Time expired)