Forestry Industry

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:49): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of Government Business in this house and a former resident of Mount Gambier some questions regarding the government's decision to privatise the forests.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In 2012, against the recommendations of the select committee of the Legislative Council, this government, for short-term expediency, opted to privatise the forests of the South-East for 100 years at a price which was exposed by many experts as way under its true value. The reason the government gave for privatising the forest back then was that forestry was in decline and that it was best that South Australia got out of forestry, notwithstanding that, since the parliament was first formed and after the colony of South Australia, Liberal and Labor governments successively had held the forests in public ownership, obviously for security reasons for the building industry as well.

We now discover that the harvesting rights were undersold by at least $230 million—that's a conservative undersell—and we also discover that in the four years that the private company has had the forests they have actually made profits of up to fourfold what the state government was receiving. In fact, in the last year of state government ownership in 2008-09, ForestrySA received $15.23 million. From 2012-13, once the profits were declared this week, we see the new owner has made up to $125.4 million in just one year. My questions therefore to the minister are:

1. Why did the minister support the privatisation at that time in defiance of what his own residents in Mount Gambier and the South-East clearly said was against the long-term interests of the South-East?

2. Will the minister, on behalf of his government, apologise to the people of the South-East?

3. How can the minister justify that this short-term expedient sale that went into recurrent budget to give a false surplus, like the MAC sale, is in the best long-term interests of South Australia, and does he now agree that his government has sold out annual significant returns to the taxpayers of South Australia to prop up their mismanagement with their budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (14:52): I thank the honourable member for his question. I can answer the last question first: no. It is a bit of a strange argument that the honourable member makes. He complains that forestry in the South-East is now four times more profitable than it was when it was sold. The complaint seems to be that forestry is doing well. Do you know what? I do not agree with that complaint at all. I am very pleased that the timber industry in the South-East is going very strongly at the moment.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is going well at the moment. I have been, over the last few years, numerous times, to a number of people involved in timber processing and involved in the services to the timber industry like harvesting, like thinning, like the planting of trees, and the industry is in much better shape than it has been for some time. So, the seeming criticism that the timber industry is more profitable and is doing better, I do not accept as a criticism for one second.

I am pleased the industry is doing well. I do not want it to do poorly. The counterfactual to what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is saying is that you want the timber industry to be unprofitable, that you want it to be unprofitable and you want it to do poorly. That is not something that I want. I am glad when I go and visit McDonnell & Sons that they are putting on more shifts, that they are buying more equipment—

The PRESIDENT: Will the honourable member address the President and not look back there?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Mr President, they are buying more equipment and putting on more shifts and creating more jobs. I am pleased about that. It is a good and healthy sign that a number of companies that are involved in, whether it is harvesting, or carting or thinning of trees, need more skilled workers. It is a positive sign about the state of the industry and the idea that the industry is more profitable being a bad thing—well, I do not agree for one second.