<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2012-02-16" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="123" />
  <endPage num="224" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding>
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000014">
      <heading>Question Time</heading>
    </text>
    <subject>
      <name>ForestrySA</name>
      <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000015">
        <heading>FORESTRYSA</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="1820" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Leader of the Opposition</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-02-16">
            <name>FORESTRYSA</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2012-02-16T14:22:00" />
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000016">
          <timeStamp time="2012-02-16T14:22:00" />
          <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:22):</by>  I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Forests a question about rotation length.</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000017">Leave granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1820" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000018">
          <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  On Tuesday of this week, the Minister for Forests told the parliament that she did not know what rotation length had been agreed to in the forward sale of the South-East forests. For the benefit of the Adelaide-centric Labor members opposite who have never seen a forest because of the trees, the rotation length is not measured in length but in years. It is the time between cutting down a pine crop from one crop and the time the next crop is ready to be harvested.</text>
        <page num="124" />
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000019">The minister said she thought the rotation was about 30 years but she would check. Later that day, she came back with an answer: under the privatisation and forward sale the rotation length will be, and I quote, '25 to 30 years'. The timber industry is shocked by this admission made for the first time by any government minister. Neither the Premier nor the Treasurer nor the sell-out, Rory McEwen, had ever let that number slip before. I have a copy of an email from Mr Islay Robinson, Chief Executive of ForestrySA. I quote from the email:</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000020">
          <inserted>Last year's area weighted rotation length was 38 years. For the current rotation the average clearfall age will drop to and stay between 32-35 years.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000021">With the forward sale, by the minister's account, that will drop not just to 35 years, or 32, or even just 30 years, but could be as low as 25 years. My questions are:</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000022">1.&amp;#x9;Does the new quick rotation mean the new owners will be able to rip out the profits early and quickly at the expense of sustainable, high-profit mature products with rotations on a 38-year average?</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000023">2.&amp;#x9;If it is not being done for a quick buck, is this being done and driven by Treasury for simple extra revenue?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women</electorate>
        <startTime time="2012-02-16T14:24:00" />
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000024">
          <timeStamp time="2012-02-16T14:24:00" />
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:24):</by>  That was a nice try from the opposition. The opposition leader is being most misleading in this matter. Members will be aware that no specification of the appropriate rotation length or term of the sale has been released publicly.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1820" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. D.W. Ridgway</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000025">
          <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. Ridgway:</by>  Until you let it slip on Tuesday.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000026">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  Not at all. This is subject to negotiations, and no rotation length has been given—</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000027">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000028">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:</by>  Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000029">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  —and that has been quite clear. The government has been quite clear about that.</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000030">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">An honourable member interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000031">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:</by>  Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000032">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  The honourable member indicated at one time during interjections that I did not know the length of a forest rotation. What I indicated to the honourable member was that I in fact did, and my statement was that the average length of a pine forest rotation is around 30 years I thought. That information is quite true. The average length of a forest plantation rotation is around 30 years. That was in response to the indication that I did not know the length of a forest rotation. I do. I gave the answer, and it is that there is some variation but I was right that it is, roughly, 30 years—</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000033">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000034">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  Sorry, 25 years; the honourable member is quite right that I originally said 25 years, or 25 to 30 years. That is the answer I was advised when I double-checked. I said I was not absolutely sure and I needed to go away, and the advice I received was that on average it was between 25 to 30 years. So, that indicated that my original answer was correct.</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000035">The honourable member is being deliberately mischievous. This government has not indicated the specification in the sale of the South-East forests; we have never indicated what the rotation length would be because it is under negotiation. It will go through a tender process. That information has never been released, nor are we going to release it at this point in time.</text>
        <text id="20120216b6b4abf277894700a0000036">In terms of me knowing the average length of a pine forest plantation rotation, my answer was quite within the realms of correctness. On average, it is somewhere between 25 and 30 years. However, that was not the answer in relation to the contract, so the member is being quite misleading and mischievous here today—as usual. Instead of being constructive in assisting the state to go forward we see these games being played here. It is absolute mischief and downright misleading.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>