FORESTRYSA

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report upon the state government's proposal to forward sell harvesting rights in ForestrySA plantation estates, and any other related matters.

2. That standing order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 23 March 2011.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:42): The Greens will support this motion to establish a select committee to inquire into and report on the state government's proposal to forward sell harvesting rights in ForestrySA plantation estates. The Greens have long supported the campaign, which has been ably led by local government and community groups in the South-East, to stop the privatisation of our South-East forests. As I said around the time of the protests that were being held here at Parliament House, selling off the family farm is the wrong way to manage the state's finances. The Greens have always opposed privatisation and this is, plain and simple, privatisation.

I do not propose to speak at any length on this motion, but I do want to acknowledge some of the correspondence I have received. In particular, I note the leadership of the District Council of Grant in writing to me and other MPs urging support not just for this motion but for the broader campaign. I note that the www.dontprivatisesaforests.com.au campaign also has the support of the City of Mount Gambier as well as of Don Pegler, the local member and also the Wattle Range Council.

I think this is one of those issues where the government may seek to minimise the harm by walking away from this misguided policy before the select committee has had the chance to do much work, in which case it may well be that the committee is a short, sharp and shiny one. The Greens' position on select committees is that where they seek to inquire into matters of genuine public concern we will generally support them. We do not support every select committee that comes along; there have been a number in the past that I have thought were just witch-hunts, and we have not supported them.

This is not; this is a matter of the utmost importance to the people of the South East. It is a matter of importance to the economy of the state, and it has implications for the extent to which we are prepared to export jobs overseas, which is what would happen if you forward sold these plantation rotations. With those brief words, the Greens will support the establishment of the select committee, and I urge other honourable members to do likewise.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:44): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate that we will be supporting this motion for a select committee put by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. In the Mid-Year Budget Review of December 2008, then treasurer Foley first raised a proposal to forward sell up the three rotations of timber (potentially 111 years of growth) in order to reduce state debt and maintain its credit rating. The proposal has provoked a massive outcry from the entire South-East population. These very public protests have drawn many others around the city and state into the debate and onside against the sale.

I think all of us have noted the two very public rallies when many hundreds of people have come from Mount Gambier and the South-East to protest against this sale on the steps of this building and the footpath, and, of course, in the form of many large trucks that have driven past. The point was made to me that, if there was an issue in Adelaide and people were asked to go to protest in Mount Gambier, how many people from Adelaide would make the trip to Mount Gambier? I think you have to pay testament to the commitment to the region by local South-East residents who came here to display that and for travelling that significant distance at their own expense.

The timber industry is by far the biggest single economic generator in the South-East. A March 2011 community impact statement into the forward sale of ForestrySA plantations by economist and timber industry specialist Dr Bob Smith, stated that the industry contributes between 18 and 20 per cent of the gross regional product and directly supports about 3,600 jobs. Industry employees' wages of $240 million per annum represent about 18 per cent of the region's entire pay packet.

The belief is that selling the harvesting rights will relinquish control over secondary processing, leaving local industries without the raw material and threaten other downstream industries like building and construction that depend on a ready supply of quality processed timber. Dr Smith's report suggests up to 3,000 jobs could be lost in the region as a result of the forward sale. In the summary he recommends that the government invest in the industry rather than divest its key asset. This supports the line that the Liberal Party has taken in relation to this matter.

The government has commissioned a regional impact statement (and we have heard about that in this place and in the other place from minister Finnigan and minister Snelling) and we understand that that statement is due for completion soon. I might say that, when the officers who were undertaking that statement went to Mount Gambier to take evidence, they gave the local community about two days' notice, which I think just shows the disdain this government holds for almost all our regional areas.

Treasurer Snelling stated on radio on 11 March that, while he would be happy to look at the community impact statement, he would give preference to the government's own regional impact statement which, as I say, was done in a very hasty fashion at the last minute. There have been conflicting reports from various ministers as to whether the government would drop the plan in the event of an adverse finding in the regional impact statement. Of course, there have been some very public squabbles between the former treasurer (Hon. Mr Foley) and the current Minister for Forests (Hon. Mr O'Brien), and we know there is division in the government regarding this.

Ultimately, no unequivocal assurance has been given that they will not proceed with the sale regardless. The government's decision may be more about whether to sell one or more rotations, or when to sell them, rather than to sell or not to sell.

I do not wish to hold the chamber for too long, but I think a number of us would remember the recent response in this council by the now Leader of the Government to a question from the Hon. Mr Wade, I think. It certainly was a question from this side of the council in relation to the impact on the South-East, and particularly in Mount Gambier, by the forward sale of the forestry.

I would like to quote some excerpts from a column in The Border Watch on 18 March by Mr Graham Greenwood, who is a former editor of The Border Watch. He is also well-known in the provincial media. He is a regular judge at the Country Press SA Awards and is well regarded in the rural journalism industry. I quote Mr Greenwood:

There is an old trick in politics that has been used many times—when backed into a corner, play the man and not the ball. This week, upper house member of parliament Bernie Finnigan did just that when he suggested the forestry forward sell-off debate was being politically hijacked, perhaps promoted by people with political aspirations. Of course it suits Mr Finnigan and other politicians to trot out the line that this issue is politically motivated, but they are wrong. Locally born, Mr Finnigan has made a mess of this issue and has little or no support in Mount Gambier following his lack of support for the future of this district.

In parliament last week in response to questioning from the Liberal opposition, Mr Finnigan said, 'We all know very well that a lot of this is about who becomes the next Liberal candidates for MacKillop and Mount Gambier at the next election and that is the prism through which a lot of the activity in relation to this campaign has to be judged.' In relation to this comment, it is assumed Mr Finnigan is speaking about Wattle Range mayor Peter Gandolfi and Mount Gambier mayor Steve Perryman.

I will not continue quoting, but Mr Greenwood goes on to indicate that Mr Perryman sought election as the member for Mount Gambier but did not achieve that; however, he did achieve being re-elected unopposed as mayor of the City of Mount Gambier. He also goes on to speculate about the former Labor candidate, great union man and solid Labor supporter, Mr Brad Coates, and his involvement in this campaign against the forward sale, and whether Mr Finnigan thinks that that is politically motivated. I will, however, quote the last section of Mr Greenwood's column:

Mount Gambier was once a Labor town—it used to be a safe Labor seat but not any more. Labor has destroyed its credibility and may never win the seat again. For some time Mount Gambier has been crying out for leadership from its politicians and civic leaders. In this forest forward sell-off the city's leaders have really stepped forward and won universal community praise. As a local, Mr Finnigan should take time to listen to what the community is saying. The only politically motivated actions in this saga are coming from people like Mr Finnigan.

A wise editor once said it was the duty of a newspaper to criticise the mayor when warranted. But if the mayor received unfair criticism from an outside source, the newspaper or community should defend him with great passion. Mr Finnigan stepped over the line.

As has been alluded to by the Hon. Mr Parnell, members of parliament have been informed of the very strong support for this motion from local government in the Lower South-East and from other members of the community across that region. I strongly suggest that, on its formation, the select committee should go to Mount Gambier and meet there to show the community of the South-East that the committee will travel there, given that so many people from Mount Gambier have travelled to Adelaide on two occasions to demonstrate their unhappiness with this move.

I also suggest—and it will be up to the select committee, obviously—that one of the witnesses who should be called would be the former member for Mount Gambier and former minister for forests the Hon. Rory McEwen who, as far as I know, was in the chair as minister for forests when this proposal was first brought forward. I think that, as the person who represented that city for some 12 years, he ought to be asked about his role in the development of this unwise policy. With those words, I indicate—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Paul, you have a few little worries over there, haven't you? You don't have enough to do, obviously.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: No, he can sit here and be bored like me.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Having made those remarks, I reiterate the support of the Liberal opposition for the select committee, which has been proposed by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (16:57): On behalf of the government, I speak in opposition of this motion. The government has outlined previously in the wake of the unfolding global financial crisis its decision to investigate the sale of the forward rotations as part of the 2008-09 Mid-Year Budget Review measures in order to reduce government debt to meet the increased demand in our core public services like doctors, nurses, police and teachers.

We are still in that process, having recently commissioned ACIL Tasman, an independent specialist economics consultancy firm, to develop a regional impact statement (RIS). The RIS will identify any potential impacts on the South-East region and its economy. It is expected that the government will receive the RIS soon and the Treasurer, as the minister responsible for this matter, will discuss the findings of the RIS with his cabinet colleagues. I understand that the consultants on the RIS have begun speaking with a wide range of key stakeholders in the South-East.

As we have said time and time again, we have not made a final decision on this matter. When we do, we will base our decision on evidence, not emotion. We want to ensure that we have considered the matter from a number of perspectives, but it is also important to make sure that we are dealing with facts. There has been, quite frankly, a large amount of misinformation spread about this proposal, particularly from some members opposite who have made some quite outrageous public comments in order to gain public support against a possible divestment.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Well, I am certainly not playing any man; I do not work that way. The government does not believe in scaring people with unsubstantiated claims about employment losses. We do not believe in that. It is irresponsible to scare people with unfounded claims about the collapse of the economy of the South-East region, yet this is what some community leaders in the South-East have been doing. We have repeatedly said that we have not made a final decision on this matter. We will look closely at the regional economic impacts. We will consider the impact on employment and we will consider the impact on the social fabric of the South-East before a final decision is made.

The new Treasurer, in response to a question from the independent member from Mount Gambier, Mr Don Pegler MP, told the lower house on 23 February this year that no final decision has been made by cabinet on this proposal and that no final decision will be made until the consultation process and the RIS is completed. We have also said that, if we do not think that the sale of forward rotations is going to provide value for the state, then we will not proceed. This is why we have commissioned an external independent consultant to look at the facts through the RIS process. We will need to be convinced that any sale will not have an adverse impact on the South-East before we enter into any discussions about the sale process.

The Premier is already on the record, on 24 November last year, as saying that if the potential is no longer economically viable then the government will not proceed with the sale. We have said this over and over again, yet we still have community leaders from the South-East spreading myths and misinformation about its demise. Recent speculation of job losses in ForestrySA by some of these leaders is pure political opportunism. I respectfully ask these community leaders to listen to our announcements about the future of ForestrySA and stop waging the scare campaign.

The government believes in the ongoing sustainability of this resource, and that is why we will continue to replant forests after clear-fell and ensure that our forests are there for future generations. This is why we have established bodies like the Forest Industry Development Board—to look at ways to grow the industry. We are committed to the forest industry in the state now and into the future. This is why we will be retaining ForestrySA in state ownership.

The government is committed to getting the right decision about the proposed sale of forward rotations and to ensuring that we consult and grow this important industry sector into the future. It is not in the public interest to be wasting resources by establishing yet another select committee when a decision about this matter has not even been made. Accordingly, the government does not support the motion.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for Gambling) (17:03): I acknowledge that there is a lot of concern in the community in the South-East and across the state about the proposed forward sale of the forest industry. What is important about this is that, first, this was announced some time ago. We have been very up-front with people about the fact that this was on the agenda. We have put in place a process, as my honourable colleague has outlined, to study carefully the economic and social impacts of any proposed sale, and that will be considered by the government before any decision is made.

But what we have seen from the Liberal Party is complete hypocrisy on this issue. This is the party which, when in government, sold a lot of the mills, which is where most of the employment is and where a lot of the fear has been generated about the processing of timber—precisely because they have seen what happens when a government hangs them out to dry, as the former Liberal government did. One of the main reasons people in the area are concerned about this is that they saw what happened across the border under the Jeff Kennett Liberal government, where everything was sold, including the land—lock, stock and barrel.

What the government is proposing and investigating is the option of forward selling harvesting rights. ForestrySA would remain in public ownership, as would the land. There is no suggestion that the government is going to privatise this asset, or sell it off lock, stock and barrel, which is what the Liberals have done in other places. For them to get on their high horse now and weep crocodile tears about this proposal is just their usual hypocrisy.

I would ask: what is the Liberal plan for the forests in the South-East? I believe it is acknowledged across the board that we cannot just sit back and hope for the best when it comes to the future of the forest industry. We know there is strong global competition, and that is a challenging environment that the forest industry will face into the future. Indeed, some of the local people and community leaders are saying there that ForestrySA needs to borrow money to invest, to buy up more and to expand the estate, rather than go down this track. Others would take the view that someone who has bought the harvesting rights may choose to make a greater investment in the industry.

What is needed is a secure future for the industry to ensure those jobs are protected and that the industry remains an important economic source, and employment source, in the South-East and elsewhere. So, what is the Liberal policy in regard to this? Is their policy just to sit at the sidelines and lob grenades and say, 'We have no plan. We have no plan for the future of forestry. We're just going to sit back and hope for the best and, one day, if somebody in global markets decides it's cheaper for them to buy their timber from Indonesia, China or somewhere else, well that will just be bad luck.'

Rather than that, this government is being proactive, and we are looking at this industry and saying, 'What is going to be the best future for this industry?' We are going forward into the future to ensure that its economic vitality and its jobs base is protected, because I think it is widely acknowledged that doing nothing is not an option when it comes to the forestry industry in the South-East.

The Hon. Mr Dawkins read out some quotes from an article in The Border Watch and, indeed, I was referring to the Mayor of Wattle Range, Mr Gandolfi, and the Mayor of Mount Gambier, Mr Perryman, who have both stood as Liberal candidates for Mount Gambier in the last two elections. I have no doubt that a major part of this campaign has been motivated by political interests and, particularly, by people trying to line themselves up for future tilts at MacKillop or Mount Gambier, whether that be as Liberal candidates or as Independents, if they find they cannot knock off Mitch for preselection. There is no doubt that there is politics in this and, certainly, if Mr Gandolfi and Mr Perryman wish to rule out standing for the next—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: If Mr Gandolfi and Mr Perryman want to rule out standing in future state elections as candidates, then I will apologise to them.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Let me say that again: if Mr Perryman and Mr Gandolfi want to publicly pledge that they will not be candidates at a future state election, then I will apologise that I said they were politically motivated, because it is quite clear that there are political interests involved here. I believe—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The Hon. Mr Dawkins is trying to shout me down precisely because he knows that there is political motivation in what is going on in some elements of the campaign being run there. I think ratepayers have a right to ask how much of their money has been put from local governments into this campaign in order to boost the political careers of individuals.

A good example of that is the community impact statement that was launched with some fanfare and was reported as suggesting that 3,000 jobs would go. Well, here is the community impact statement, which is available on the campaign website, and I am assuming that local government made some contribution, either to this campaign or to the production of this document.

So, here is their great community impact statement, which was reported as proving that the whole thing was going to be a disaster and cost thousands of jobs. Here are all 10 pages of the glory of the community impact statement: Page 1, title page; Page 2, contents page; and then there are eight pages, including a nice graph at the back. It has no-one's name on it; it does not say where it is from or who wrote it—none of that anywhere—and yet it was reported as saying that there were definitely 3,000 jobs which will go, because 3,000 jobs is the total industry employment estimated.

If you actually read what this supposed community impact statement does say, it basically says that it is very difficult to judge what the effects might be of a forestry sale in an unconstrained way without knowing exactly what the parameters are, and that is why the government has commissioned its own study. We are looking at it carefully. We are not going to just accept this notion that it is going to be a fire sale and that the whole thing will be sold off lock, stock and barrel, including the land and the corporation, because the government has said that that will not happen.

So, if you look carefully at what this report says, it makes very clear that an unconstrained, unrestricted fire sale of the forestry assets in the South-East would be damaging to the region, and that undoubtedly is true, which is why the government is not engaging in an unconstrained, no-holds-barred fire sale of the assets, including the land and the company. We are not doing that in the South-East. Indeed, as we have indicated again and again, no decision has even been made as to what is going to be outcome. We have put in place the regional impact statement process and, once we have that, we will look at it carefully and make a decision from there.

While no decision has been made, it would seem particularly premature to set up a select committee to inquire into something. Like many of the select committees that are set up in this place, it has a predetermined outcome. We have heard all honourable members getting up and saying how they think this is a bad idea. So, what is the point of having a select committee? What is for? Is it going to come back and say, 'Well, we had a look at it, and now we think it is great.'

They have already decided that they oppose this policy. They oppose this idea because of their narrow political interests. When they were in government, they were happy to sell off everything—they were happy to sell off ETSA and they were happy to sell of the TAB for less than $50 million. They know that now they are acting out of a narrow political interest, trying to get their men up in future elections. So, they are simply playing political games, and the select committee is undoubtedly a part of that.

If you make a speech to propose a select committee and say, 'This is a terrible idea and it is going to ruin the community,' what is the point of having the committee? You have already written the report; you have already decided what it is going to find. So, let's just save everybody's time and money and why don 't you table the report right now? It is an absurd process when it is very clear that there is no way on God's green earth that this committee is going to come back and say, 'Well, having thought about it and having had a look at it now, we've decided that, yes, it's a good idea. We're right behind you now.'

This committee is not about finding out what is in the best interests of the South-East. This committee is about political grandstanding and members, hopefully, having an opportunity to get themselves on television and stir up more angst, more anger and more fear in the minds of residents in the South-East about a proposed sale that has not even been decided on, and that is reckless and irresponsible of the opposition. It is acting purely out of political interest and not having the true interests of the people in the South-East at heart.

Well, I, as I am sure you do, Mr President, have the interests of the people of the people of the South-East at heart. I am not going to be part of a government that just stands by and slowly waits for the forest industry to decline or slowly waits for global competition to overwhelm them. I will be part of a government that will make sure that the forestry industry has a future for its economic growth and for its jobs, and what that future will be will depend on the evidence and what is going to be the best for the people of the South-East and for that industry, and that decision has not been made. That decision will be made on the evidence, not on the basis of some narrow, self-concerned political campaign from the opposition and from certain individuals who are worried about their own political future.

I am particularly concerned that, by constantly talking down the South-East and constantly saying that the community will be ruined if this goes ahead and everyone will lose their jobs, the opposition is talking down the area and the industry and threatening the very people it claims to be protecting. The opposition is threatening the very people whose interests it claims to be protecting. It is talking down the industry and the area. It is saying that the South-East will be ruined, property values will plummet and 3,000 people will be unemployed overnight. It is trying to make the South-East a political football and it is threatening the livelihood of the very people it is claiming to protect, and it is outrageous.

Every time they get up there and say the South-East is going to be ruined, the South-East has no future, Mount Gambier is going to close and 3,000 people will be out of work, they are deliberately talking down that area, which does have a very bright future, not only within the forest industry but in many other industries as well. I do not think there is any doubt in my mind, or in the mind of any serious economist either, that the South-East and Mount Gambier have a very bright economic future for all sorts of reasons to do with climate and location and a whole range of things.

Instead, what the opposition are doing is trying to make it sound as if 3,000 people will be out of work overnight and that property values will collapse and that the town will be ruined. They are trying to cast doubt and fear into the community and make those people in the South-East and around this state believe the South-East has no future. That is grossly irresponsible; it is reckless; it is just political gamesmanship; it is playing political football with people's lives, and I am appalled that that is the game the opposition have been playing.

As I say, I acknowledge that people are concerned about this policy. They are legitimate concerns. People are entitled to put their concerns forward. I have been happy to listen to what people have had to say. I do not doubt anybody's right to put forward their point of view. I do not doubt their right to protest outside here at Parliament House, but what I do have an issue with, what I do have a problem with, is the scaremongering and the fear campaign, the talking down the area, threatening people's jobs, threatening people's livelihoods, threatening the future of the area for a few political points, for a few lines in The Border Watch, for a few snippets on the TV news. It is grossly irresponsible, it is reckless and it ought to be condemned.

This select committee is a sham. It is another part of their campaign. It is another part of their trying to talk down the future of the area, trying to threaten the livelihood of the South-East into the future. The government has been very clear: we have put in place a process to examine the potential possible forward sale of forestry harvesting. We are in the middle of that process. The regional impact statement is being prepared. When that is, the government will consider it carefully and a decision will be made.

That decision will be made in the best interests of the people of the South-East and of the state and in the best interests of the workers there as well, because we do know that whatever happens it is very important that forestry has a future and that the forestry industry is invested in so that there will be the economic and jobs base of the future. This government is not interested in political grandstanding. We are not interested in the big football. We are not interested in playing around with people's lives in the South-East in order to score a few political points. We will take a principled, objective, balanced decision, based on the evidence, that will be in the best interests of the state and in the best interests of the residents of the South-East.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:18): I had not intended to speak until I heard I think probably two of the more appalling contributions to any debate that I have heard in quite some time in this chamber, from the leader of the government, the Hon. Mr Finnegan, and the Hon. Ms Zollo, trying to defend the government's indefensible position on this. It is sad; it is demeaning of both members that they should have made those contributions in the fashion that they have done.

What we have just seen is a vicious attack on community leaders and people who happen to take a particular view which is different to this government's view. We saw, as I said, firstly from the Hon. Ms Zollo and then supported by the Hon. Mr Finnigan, a vicious, premeditated attack on community leaders, council leaders, union leaders, worker representatives, forestry workers and others by the representatives of this delusional and out-of-touch government.

What they are saying—and they will not be prepared to say it outside, I am sure—is that the opposition to this position by these community leaders is not a genuinely held view; it is a view being held by some because they just want to win future political office. That is what the Labor Party representatives are saying in this chamber. They do not really believe this. They do not really believe what they are saying. They are only doing it to get a financial benefit or a future benefit for themselves by running for political office. That is what the government is saying about these political leaders, these community leaders, these union leaders, these forestry leaders, these business leaders and other representatives in the South-East.

I am proud to say that I spent almost the first 20 years of my life calling Mount Gambier home. My family are still in Mount Gambier, and members of my family and friends of mine are active participants in the forestry and forestry-related industries. Unlike the Hon. Mr Finnigan, I do not intend to turn my back on or spit in the face of former friends, acquaintances and family in Mount Gambier and the South-East and abuse them under parliamentary privilege in this chamber because they happen to have a view that is different from the government's on this issue. That is how far this debate has descended, from the government's viewpoint.

It is not just the mayors of the councils down there; we have received letters unanimously endorsed by whole councils. So, what is the Hon. Mr Finnigan and the Hon. Mrs Zollo saying—that all those members of the councils are deluded by the leadership of their mayors and do not really believe what they are supporting in terms of these resolutions? This attack is not on just the mayors but on every council member who supported those particular motions. It is on every one of those people who have signed petitions, it is an attack on every one of the protesters who came to Adelaide, who gave up their time and money to come here to try to put a point of view to this government on this issue.

People like the Hon. Mr Finnigan, who pretends to be representative of the country, who pretends to be a representative of Mount Gambier, have turned their back on them. It was not just that he did not agree, because on many occasions when you are in government you make decisions with which you do not agree; but you do not then launch premeditated, vicious assaults on the individuals who have taken a view that is different from yours.

The Hon. Mr Finnigan wants to put challenges out to people, but I put a challenge out to the Hon. Mr Finnigan: go outside of parliamentary privilege and parliament and say exactly those things—that the only reason these people are running these particular campaigns is that they want political office. That is what he is saying. If he wants to issue challenges, I issue a challenge to the Hon. Mr Finnigan: go outside and make those same statements in the community.

I bet he will not have the courage to do so, he will not have the courage to go outside this place and make all those statements in relation to attributing attitudes to those community leaders, that they do not believe the views they have been putting, that they are just making up those views because they want a financial or personal benefit by being elected to political office at some time in the future.

The Hansard record will not show it, but government members are squealing like stuck pigs over this issue at the moment. Let me put on the public record that, whilst the record will not show it, the government members—the Hon. Mr Holloway and the Hon. Mr Finnigan—are squealing like stuck pigs at the moment because they are embarrassed about the position being put by their representatives in this debate.

Let me address three or four of the issues that have been raised in supposed defence from the government. The first claim, which is unadulterated tripe, is that no decision has been taken. We had the Hon. Mr Finnigan standing up, 'No decision has been taken.' The Hon. Mrs Zollo says that no decision has been taken in relation to this issue.

Let me tell you, Mr President, having been a treasurer, nothing gets put into the forward estimates by Treasury unless there is a decision of the government to base it on. It is as simple as that. Nothing will go into the forward estimates of the budget—and the forward estimates are this year's budget and the next three years—unless there is a decision of the government. On a number of occasions, Treasury would have said to me when I was treasurer, 'Treasurer, we put this into the forward estimates because there is a decision of the cabinet to back that particular inclusion in the forward estimates.'

This is not a minor amount of money of $100,000 here or there or even $1 million here or there. This is approximately $500 million in the forward estimates which had been included by Treasury on the basis of a government decision having been announced and taken 2½ years ago at the time of the 2008-09 Mid-Year Budget Review.

It may well be, because of the strength of the community opposition and some opposition within the Labor caucus and the cabinet, as well, that the government is now reconsidering its position. That may well be the case and, if it is the case, the only reason it is the case is because of the strength of the opposition from community leaders, supported by members of parliament like the Liberal Party, the Greens and others. That would be the only reason why the decision may well be back in the melting pot.

It is a bit like the decision on the Parks Community Centre. That decision was made, included in the forward estimates as a result, but because of the community opposition to that decision, they backflipped, they backed down and they had to take it out of the forward estimates. That might be the set of circumstances that is occurring at the moment; that is, because of the strength of the opposition (which they underestimated), they thought that if the Hon. Mr Finnigan rolled over on his tummy and accepted the decision, that everyone else would roll over on their collective tummies and accept the decision, as well.

Well, that is not going to happen with the South-East. One thing I can say about the South-East is that the people pride themselves on their independence, their ability to fight for their causes and their capacity to take up the battle on behalf of their community with whatever government—Liberal or Labor—happens to take a decision contrary to their best interests.

Let's not hear this nonsense, this unadulterated tripe from government members that no decision has been taken. They might be rethinking it, they might reconsider it, but you do not get $500 million slipped into the budget forward estimates unless there is a decision of the government and of the cabinet to justify it. It is as simple as that and I can put it no more clearly than that.

The other point that the Hon. Mr Finnigan was making was that there was a predetermined outcome from a possible select committee. The benefit of a select committee is clearly to take evidence from community leaders—and not just community leaders but other representatives—and to give them a chance to put their point of view. I hope the Hon. Mr Finnigan, who says he is a representative of Mount Gambier, will have the courage to sit on the select committee. I hope he will not be a political coward and not sit on the select committee.

Let's not hear any nonsense that ministers do not sit on select committees, because I and other ministers in the former government sat on a number of select committees. Given the fact that he has virtually little to do, anyway, in his portfolios (they are so junior) he should have plenty of time to sit on a select committee and listen to the evidence. I do not know but I hope that he will not be a political coward and that he will be prepared to sit on this committee and listen to the evidence from the community, bureaucrats and others who should be called before that committee. If he does not, he will be guilty of political cowardice that has never been seen before in this chamber.

The committee will also be able to take evidence from government bureaucrats. Let us find out why Treasury put it into the forward estimates. Let us find out whether in their view a decision had been taken in relation to this particular issue. Let us find out why the regional impact statements from the bureaucrats and others have only just commenced in the last whatever the period is.

This decision, as the Hon. Mr Holloway likes to bleat, was announced back in the 2008-09 Mid-Year Budget Review. Why didn't a regional impact statement, or anything, commence at that particular time? Again, the only reason we are seeing any of these regional impact statements and other things is because of the massive uprising, the protests, and the concern being expressed in the South-East community about this particular proposition from the government.

A number of those witnesses have not given evidence to any committee. There is no information available publicly as to the reasons why we have moved down this particular path. No reasons have been given publicly, for example, as to why the government has chosen three rotations as opposed to two, or whatever it is. What is the information available in relation to whether they will allow the shortening of rotations under private sector ownership, for example?

A number of questions need to be put to important public servants in a number of government departments, such as Treasury, possibly primary industries, certainly ForestrySA, and a range of other departments and agencies. They would need to give evidence to this particular committee. So it is not just a vehicle to listen to the community concerns, as important as that is; it is to throw some facts, some light and some evidence on the basis for the policy that the government has in mind, and what the potential implications and ramifications of that policy might be.

As I said, I did not intend to speak until I heard the vicious attacks from the Hon. Mrs Zollo and the Hon. Mr Finnigan on community leaders who are not able to represent themselves in this particular chamber and also the unadulterated tripe of some of the claims that no decisions have been taken, and that there was no point in having a select committee because we would know everything anyway in terms of the public record.

I strongly support the motion for the establishment of the select committee. I hope it is passed. I will conclude by saying again that I hope that the Hon. Mr Finnigan does not turn his back again on the people of Mount Gambier and that he has the courage and is prepared to sit on this committee and listen to the evidence first-hand.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:33): First and foremost, I thank honourable colleagues for their contribution. I have certainly appreciated those important contributions. In wrapping up, I just want to acknowledge quite a few people outside of the chamber who have actually put a big effort into expressing concerns about the proposed forward sale of our forests.

On other occasions, when there has been a significant sell-off of state government assets, they have had to come through both houses of parliament in a democratic process to be passed. The advice to me is that, on this occasion, the forward sale of our forestry actually does not have to come through the parliament, and that in itself must ring an enormous alarm bell with all of us who represent our South Australian community.

Whilst I will say at the outset that the government's decision will most seriously impact the South-East, it will also impact a range of other areas of the state: Kuitpo, Williamstown, the Mid North, and other areas. The impact will be felt by all South Australians—city and country. It will not only impact existing South Australians; the impact of this is so potentially serious that it could impact generations way out, because we are talking about a potential sale—privatisation—of forestry assets to any buyer. It could be an overseas buyer, and probably will be if it is sold. It is going to see a situation where our great-grandchildren will be impacted by this decision.

Let's talk for a moment about the impacts and how broad they are. The impacts to the building industry: one of the reasons that successive governments have supported the development of ForestrySA and the government ownership of our forests has been because—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you for your protection, Mr President. From an environmental point of view, it was paramount that we initially had to start up these forests to stop the devastation of our native timber across the state and, from there, there has been a lot of environmental research decade after decade on the benefits of sustainable and renewable forestry. We have enormous concern already being raised at what could happen with the sustainability of our building industry. On that, I want to say that already we are seeing how difficult it is for first home buyers in this state. Imagine what would happen if we do not have a sustainable, managed and controlled-by-government timber supply to our building industry. That in itself is a most alarming concern. I want to—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Holloway shouldn't remind the honourable member that he sold the sawmills.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —acknowledge a number of people that have done an incredible job from the South-East in raising their issues and concerns. I put on the public record my appreciation of the City of Mount Gambier, the District Council of Grant and the Wattle Range Council. I also put on the record that the South East Local Government Association has done a lot of work in this. Individual businesses have done a lot of work in raising the concern. We saw mums, dads and kids out here on two occasions at probably two of the most significant rallies we have seen for some time where the people had to travel enormous distances at a huge cost because they were so concerned about this decision and the potential risk for the future for the South-East as a region and also for the state of South Australia.

We need to remind colleagues in here that one of the leaders of this charge was the CFMEU. The CFMEU have actually put in and endorsed very many members of parliament here, and I am sure that the CFMEU are wondering about their investment into those government members of parliament when they are not seeing any fight or support for the very workers that the CFMEU still support (and will continue to support), but we do not see that support from members on the government side that have been assisted into the parliament by them.

I want to raise a couple of points. First and foremost, colleagues may or may not know that there was information that we were able to get hold of from Dr Jerry Leech. He is a forestry scientist and he has warned that the state's forests could be sold off at $1 billion below their true value. This is a credible person—Dr Jerry Leech. He is a former and very prominent scientist for ForestrySA, who was one of the people charged over many years with the development of our forestry industry, and he is saying that: 'the sell-off could "short change" the state by more than $1b'.

The former principal scientist to what is now ForestrySA, who has also worked as a forestry consultant to the United Nations, drew from precedents of both Queensland and Victorian privatisation of forests. Dr Leech, who has undertaken considerable analysis on the value of the asset, estimates that the estate would sell (so, if they sold all these forests off) for no more than $600 million for three rotations—well below its value outlined in ForestrySA's annual report. The government wants to sell this off at a lower price potentially than that of the annual report. He goes on: 'I see no sense whatsoever in selling ForestrySA.'

On that point, when we did finally get one report on this, hidden in part of that report was some information from PIRSA. As well as agriculture and fishing, PIRSA is actually responsible for forestry. PIRSA as a department strongly recommended against the sale, yet the government, in defiance of the very department that has the control, management, knowledge and skills, just swept it to one side.

This is about the future of South Australia. I was slightly offended, not for myself, because as politicians we have to take the hustle and bustle in the chamber, but for the people of the South-East, and not only for those people. I am sure my colleagues, even just in general conversation when you go to the shopping centre or into your local town, have had people say, 'What on earth is going on with the government wanting to privatise our forests?' These people have genuine and legitimate reasons for protesting about these concerns. That is what they have, and the parliament is the only opportunity these people have to get some transparency, honesty and real input into this issue.

I am not sure who has actually been driving this—I have no idea—but if this select committee gets up it will be interesting to see who were the drivers behind it, what was the net cost benefit analysis, what they project will be the forward sale values of these forests, and a range of other questions. What guarantees and assurances did they consider with respect to jobs and the potential loss of jobs? Did they look at what other opportunities could be valued on and grown if it were to stay in government ownership? There are so many unanswered questions.

With a couple more points I will reiterate two or three things. First and foremost, this regional impact statement was never going to be considered by the government. It was only after enormous pressure from a very large cross section of people that it started to develop the terms of reference for regional impact statements. On that very point, I have had very sensible people raise with me the terms of reference, and they say that they do not go far enough. I do not know what the terms of reference are. I have not been privy, as a member of parliament, to those terms of reference, but would you not have thought that you would have done a regional impact statement before actually putting in a cabinet submission? I would have thought so, particularly on this, because this is an enormous amount of money we are talking here.

It particularly concerns me that it is in the forward estimates. We need to know what are the facts, figures and the truth of this whole thing. I am open minded from the point of view of getting a cross-section and broad evidence but, when you see the government making very quick decisions (after a visit from someone in the eastern states) to spend $530 million or $540 million on the Adelaide Oval; when you see very late decisions on projects that I am delighted are occurring, like the doubling of the Southern Expressway, but made very late, you wonder whether that money from the forests, if they are to sell it, is just to get them out of trouble so that they can deliver these projects with no clear thinking about the long-term future of the state. That is simply why I propose this particular select committee.

My final point is that I am offended by one comment from a government member who said that it was a waste of resources and money for us as a Legislative Council to have a select committee into this. The amount of money we will spend on this select committee is a drop in the bucket compared with decisions the government makes every day. What if it did cost $50,000 to have this select committee? If we happen to find this is a very bad decision for this state's future we could be saving hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not accept the argument. It is an offensive argument to say that we should not be spending money on a select committee until we wait and see what the government decides to do.

I say to the government that it would be a government in defiance of the basic democracy of this state if it makes a decision to sell these assets before the select committee, if it gets up, reports to the parliament. It would be an absolute defiance of democracy. It would be far more than the arrogant government that we know: it would be an absolute defiance of democracy. Now, as my colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell said, the government may turn around and make a decision in the next few weeks, as the fire really starts to build, and say, 'No, that's it, we're not going to sell it.'

I would suggest to the house that it may still be worthwhile continuing the select committee: first, to get to the truth of it; and, secondly, to ensure that, if this is ever put up again, there is public evidence about the pros and cons of this issue. As the Hon. Mark Parnell said—and other colleagues have spoken to me about it also—this is privatisation. This is selling off an asset, and it is one of the biggest assets that the state still owns. With those words, I again thank my colleagues and everybody who has contributed both inside and outside this parliament.

Motion carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hons D.W. Ridgway, J.S. Lee, P. Holloway, R.P. Wortley and R.L. Brokenshire; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on 27 July 2011.