FORESTRY (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:25): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Forestry Act 1950. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

After a lot of deliberation, Family First has decided to put amendments to the Forestry Act, irrespective of whether ultimate privatisation occurs or not with respect to the three forward rotations and also, at this point in time, not being presumptuous about what the final report may be with respect to the select committee.

Obviously, whilst I acknowledge the select committee is difficult for the government, I acknowledge the cooperation of the government members on the committee in being able to do our work, as has been approved by this house for that select committee, and whether or not there is a minority report and a majority report, all those sorts of things remain to be sorted out in the next several weeks.

However, what has become very clear in recent times in particular is the fact that we need to ensure that, together with sustainable agriculture, sustainable manufacturing—hopefully, that is the goal—and sustainable mining, we also need to see sustainable forestry. Sustainable forestry is paramount to the long-term future of this state as, indeed, has been illustrated over a long period of time by successive governments of both colours.

The elements of this bill are the key things that I really want to put on the record today. One of the key elements of this bill is to require a state forestry plan to be developed under law. It is paramount now that we have legislative requirements for state plans. I am forever doing this and I will continue to do so as long as I am in this chamber—and I am a dairy farmer from a dairy farming family—but under the former Liberal government, we had a dairy plan that was initiated by the Hon. Rob Kerin. When the Hon. Mike Rann came into office he finalised that plan and released it. That plan had a shelf life on it like all plans and, unfortunately, it expired towards the end of 2010. Since then there has been no dairy plan.

That is just one example that I know very well. I believe that we need to start to get these plans enshrined in law so that we can give continuity to the people, corporations and companies involved in that industry sector. This will also, I believe, help assist with a commitment to forestry in South Australia. Dick Adams' federal bipartisan parliamentary committee presented a view that forestry in Australia has a bright future. While the economy is having problems, why would you put at risk and talk down an industry like forestry?

Just to put it on the public record, it is an interesting dynamic at the moment because the government is saying that forestry is not really looking all that good for the future. In fact, it has said more than that: it has said that the government owning forestry is a risk. That is what Treasury has said: it is actually a risk for the government to own those forests. Before we finish our work, I am sure we will explore with Treasury more how they can qualify forestry as a risk.

With respect to Mr Dick Adams, who is a member of the federal Labor Party, and the chair, I believe, of this bipartisan committee, he saw that forestry in Australia has a bright future. Of course, given the fact that Pinus radiata is a very flexible renewable timber, a quick growing timber (in 32 or 34 years, you can get a fully matured tree), South Australia, I believe is probably positioned better than a lot of the other states to actually capitalise on that bright future.

Clearly, the federal Labor government would not have put people on the Future Fund board to look at investments and where they spend that money if they did not have the expertise and capacity to manage that huge investment for Australia's future called the Future Fund. It is interesting to see that the people who are actually assigned to invest that money wisely chose to put some of that Future Fund money into a Canadian company, which is an international company, and that company happens to be in forestry.

The reason the Future Fund federally put that money in there is that it also clearly sees a bright future for forestry. Here we have a federal Labor bipartisan parliamentary committee reporting on forestry having a bright future. We have a federal board of the commonwealth Labor government allowing that board, by virtue of the people appointed to that board, to put money into forestry because it sees it has a bright future, but here the government is saying we have to get rid of it and flog it off because it is a risk.

I think, irrespective of whether it is privatised or not, based on all the evidence thus far it is time to implement an amendment to the bill so that we have a state forestry plan. I would appeal to the government to support that because, if the government gets its way and goes ahead and privatises the plantations, one of the things that will really damage even further the confidence of the investors and those who currently have an enormous amount of money in it, and the four, five or six thousand jobs directly and indirectly in forestry will be if the government walks away from forestry. If the government still has a responsibility to a plan for forestry, then it cannot walk away. It also shows that the state takes forestry very seriously.

There will be a review period in the bill with respect to that state forestry plan, but the main intent of one of the elements is to have a state forestry plan. Just on that, when I was down in the South-East at a public meeting at the Sir Robert Helpmann Theatre, one of the speakers was a union official, who knows the industry and who has actually been in there trying to convince the government not to privatise. What he said was that it is important for South Australia's forestry future that we have a forestry plan. By that he meant a plan that is legislated, as I understood his discussion, and one for which the government of the day is then to be held accountable.

The second one is that this bill requires the tabling of the sale of the contract. Clearly, like any other aspect of this bill, we are open to debate and amendment on this aspect. Some members may say—rightfully so, as is a democratic right in this house—that it might not be the perfect model. We appreciate the commercial in confidence issues and we realise that the commercial in confidence has to be removed from this process. If colleagues have a better way of trying to get to where I believe we need to go with this, then obviously, as they all well know, they can move further amendments and we will consider those amendments with an open mind. The key issue in the intent here is to ensure that all of the conditions of sale proposed by the South East Forest Industry Roundtable are in fact included in the contract.

Because this contract will go for so long if the privatisation goes through, it will go through lots of parliaments. It will go for at least 100 years. There is some debate as to whether it will be 99, 100 or maybe even up to 110 or 120 years. We have an obligation, as the current legislators of this parliament on behalf of the existing community and the future community, to ensure that whatever contractual conditions are there in principle (notwithstanding the exclusion of some commercial-in-confidence parts) are enshrined in law. Sometimes in debate it is hard to remember what happened a year or two ago; sometimes it is hard to remember what happened 10 years ago. I suggest that, when you have something for 100 years, it is going to be very difficult to know exactly what the intent was at that time unless it is enshrined in law and interlocked.

'Interlocked' is an interesting word at the moment. We hear about interlocking shop trading hours with penalty rates and two half public holidays. It is probably going to be a buzz word in this house in a few weeks' time. We need to interlock the contract conditions and ensure that they are also interlocked with the South East Forest Industry Roundtable, which the government said would be a big factor for consideration with respect to a sale.

In other words, we need to question if we do not do this how those conditions will be enforced into the future, because I project that, in the next 100 years, there will probably be many Labor and Liberal governments, and maybe some other party, running this place—who knows? I am sure the Labor and Liberal parties will still be here but there could be another player in the field when it comes to being able to form a government. It could be anything. It could be a cross-section of parties and independents. We need to understand that the roundtable recommendations that the government has properly implemented and committed to are enshrined in law.

The third and final point, and a very important part of this spiel, is a South-East economic stimulus fund. I have been talking about stimulus funds for some time. We moved amendments during the Roxby Downs indenture agreement debate to the effect that there should be royalties for regions. That did not get the required numbers in the house—that is the way it goes—but at least we put it up for debate. In that debate I note that the Liberals said that, whilst they were sympathetic to what I was proposing, they were doing more work on it. I took from that that probably they would be looking at royalties for regions as a policy come the next election.

Clearly, the government has listened to some of this debate and there has been quite a bit of media comment on this argument as well, bearing in mind that the Hon. Karlene Maywald, the former coalition minister with the government in its last term of office—she being a member of the National Party—was over there eagerly looking at the Western Australian model and flouting that as a concept. I raise that and say that there is a lot of debate and it is on the radar now that we need to start to look at royalties for regions and the like.

Premier Jay Weatherill has a pretty good radar and antenna on this. He could see that he had to do something on it and I understand we are going to have put before us (hopefully some of us in this house will be able to be part of that) a working bipartisan committee to look at the merits of a royalties for regions fund, a stimulus fund or some sort of future fund. That is what I took from the Governor's address to us in the joint sitting. Of course, that is fine and that is talk. We need action, and we need action urgently.

The South-East, the Green Triangle area in particular, has been one of the most vibrant regions in this state for a very long time. In fact, I cannot remember in my lifetime when the South-East and Mount Gambier, as a big regional city, have not been a fundamental part of the economic stimulus and development of this state. I am sure, sir, you have some compassion for the South-East, given the connections you have there.

The PRESIDENT: Hear, hear!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sir, when you retire, I hope you spend quite a bit of time down there. I will look forward to meeting with you and, hopefully, you can help me lobby. You would be a good lobbyist for the interests of the South-East and rural South Australia which, obviously, you have put a lot into and probably got a fair bit out of, originally as a shearer and developing your career from there.

Coming back to this point, as I said, the people of the South-East have made a massive economic, social and emotional investment in state forestry for over 100 years. Therefore, I have put on the table that 20 per cent of the sale proceeds need to be dedicated to an economic stimulus fund for the South-East, that is, 20 per cent of an investment that has primarily been put in and nurtured by the people of the South-East.

The reason for that is that I think the government will walk out of the area with a bagful of money. I would not say a truck full of money, because I am not convinced this sale is going to get anywhere near what is needed, as suggested by people with higher knowledge like Dr Jerry Leech. But there will be a big bagful of money come out of there and I think a small bagful should be left there. We are advocating for 20 per cent and I will be interested to hear the remarks of colleagues on that and any amendments they might like to move.

This would be quarantined and dedicated for the South-East. It says economic opportunities are going to change in the South-East and there will be a stimulus fund needed there. They are particularly going to change if the government walks away from Forestry SA, the R&D work and the underpinning of facilitating opportunities for the whole of the forestry industry, because not only is Forestry SA the largest player and owner of estate in the South-East but it also underpins and facilitates the growth through the private sector.

I was down in the South-East just last week checking a few things. I know it is tough everywhere at the moment—not just in this state but everywhere, but it is particularly tough in this state—and we have seen some figures in recent times that none of us would be pleased about. Some of the shops that members of the select committee went to for a cup of coffee and bite to eat were closed. Other shops in the South-East were closed, and other businesses are very concerned. If this goes ahead, it would be one way of reinvigorating confidence.

I put on the public record again that in my own personal opinion I do not believe we should be privatising, but let us see what happens when we get other witnesses back in and the final report. I personally do not see the evidence to privatise but, if we are going to, surely we have an obligation as a government and parliament to ensure that there is an opportunity for things to still grow very strongly in the South-East.

I would finish by saying that the South-East is not only a prime forestry area but also a prime dairy, beef, lamb, cereal and legume crop growing area and, because of its water, soil type and climate, I believe the South-East has huge opportunities, with stimulus, to go into fully value-added horticulture. It is fantastically located geographically to capitalise on the eastern seaboard markets—as, indeed, also is the Riverland.

That would help offset the problems in the Virginia area at the moment because of the growth and road infrastructure that are making it hard for them to farm and also, if we are to have anywhere near the growth that is projected in the 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide, we are going to need quite a lot more food being produced. They are just some of the opportunities available to the South-East. I believe that it is paramount that the economic stimulus fund be dedicated to creating real jobs through direct and indirect support to encourage the growth of businesses, and, importantly, to the infrastructure that is needed to assist with our growth.

With those remarks, I commend this bill to the council and look forward to input from members. Sometimes, in private members' time, we are able to put bills on the table and leave them there for months—if not up to a year—before we put them up to debate. That is right and proper depending on what the situation is at the time. I think there is a degree of urgency with this particular bill, so I will be giving notice in probably three to four weeks that I would like to draw this bill to the attention of members and put it to a vote within the next couple of sitting months. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.