Poverty in South Australia

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on poverty in South Australia, and in particular—

(a) the extent and nature of poverty in South Australia;

(b) the impact of poverty on access to health, housing, education, employment, services and other opportunities;

(c) the practical measures that could be implemented to address the impacts of poverty;

(d) any other relevant matters.

2. That standing order 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 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 9 May 2018.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:08): I rise to support and speak on the very commendable motion by the Hon. Tammy Franks that a select committee be established into poverty in South Australia, looking at every aspect of its impact on our society and what society can and should be providing.

It was an extremely cold night across Adelaide last night. As I warmed myself in front of the fire, I thought about the 6,000 people experiencing homelessness right now in South Australia. In the fifth most liveable city in the world I thought about the 143 people who were sleeping rough in the CBD—an 18 per cent increase from the number in the 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census.

The recent survey by the Adelaide Zero Project, led by the Don Dunstan Foundation and the Hutt St Centre volunteers, identified that about 60 per cent of homeless people surveyed were aged 26 to 54. Nearly three-quarters of them reported a physical health problem, while almost half suffered from a mental health condition. Two in five had substance abuse issues.

In Australia tonight, around 116,000 people will have no place to call home and 43,500 people are aged 25. These are startling and sobering statistics that should make us all take notice and demand that, in such a rich country, something needs to be done to reverse the rate of homelessness and poverty. Homelessness and poverty are intertwined.

What are our governments doing about it? Are they doing enough? Earlier this month, New Zealand's Prime Minister, the Hon. Jacinda Ardern, prioritised her country's problem by committing $100 million dollars to give her country's 40,000 homeless people shelter this winter. I have not as yet seen a similar pledge this side of the Tasman. Over the past nine years, $9 billion has been spent through the National Affordable Housing Agreement. The federal government and the states are currently trying to renegotiate the deal, to be called the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA) and to come into effect in July, that would lock in $4.6 billion in funding for states and territories over the next three years, including $375 million for homelessness services, which the states are required to match.

This money seems to be there, but is it enough and is it being used wisely? I grew up in an era when the Playford government and subsequent governments, until recently, proudly fostered a unique, low cost public housing program specifically for low income families. The Housing Trust worked wonderfully well until recent times, when Labor and Liberal governments began a slow dismantling of social housing by selling off stocks and not increasing the numbers of new stock to meet the obvious demand. It is incumbent on governments to look after the best interests of the most vulnerable in society, not fob off their responsibilities to non-government organisations with waiting lists that still stretch into decades for some of the most needy.

The government is also shirking its obligation to ensure these properties are maintained to a proper acceptable standard. Sometimes some of these homes do not go to those who really need and deserve them. They have become havens for criminals, drug dealers and, unfortunately, the mentally ill, who would have been better off in a proper medical facility or under some form of structured care. People, families and children are still being forced to live in cars. As Mission Australia chief executive James Toomey said, safe and secure housing provides the platform for children to attend school, adults to work, people to be healthy and communities to thrive. I believe these are some of the failures that the Hon. Tammy Franks wishes to shine a spotlight upon.

Statistics will also tell us that today 250 people were turned away from crisis centres across the country. Again, this is unacceptable in a country like ours. That brings me to the wonderful unsung work that is done here by NGOs. I want to single out the Hutt St Centre, which, over recent months, has been subjected to unjustified and harsh criticism by self-interest groups, some members of council and anonymous NIMBYs (not in my backyard-ers). There have been false and malicious allegations about what occurs there. One local even has a camera focused on the footpath outside the centre and is happy to distribute any footage that shows any unsociable behaviour, which is often not the fault of the centre. I have seen more unsociable behaviour at the Adelaide Oval during a Crows or Port Power match.

There seem to be other forces at work here in trying to get the centre either closed or moved into another part of the city. Moving what they perceive to be problem somewhere else seems to be the solution and not the answer. Meanwhile, the southern end of the street, once earmarked for social housing projects, suddenly becomes a magnet for more upmarket development.

The Hutt St Centre has been quietly going about its pastoral work with the homeless and less fortunate in our community for an amazing and rewarding 64 years. Many South Australians would be unaware what actually goes on inside. Recently, I decided to go and see for myself. I spent two days there and it opened my eyes to the unseen, unheralded and yet important service it provides to the less fortunate who have fallen through the cracks of society.

The Hutt St Centre is such a vital safety net for them, providing meals to the hungry, inclusion programs, opportunities to find work and a meaningful purpose in life, a place where they can find someone genuinely interested in them and their lonely transient lives and also someone to talk to. I met some of the clients and heard their stories, their hopes and their aspirations to claw their way out of the situation they now find themselves in.

There is Walter, the Indigenous artist whose talent for dot paintings was discovered there; Brian, the ex-army vet who now proudly has his own home and garden, thanks to the centre, and still returns there for some camaraderie and art classes, and just to provide company for others; Craig, the lead singer of the centre's rock band, The Outsiders, whose voice can match the screeching crescendo of Jimmy Barnes; and Leo, from the Gang Greens, who quietly go up and down Hutt Street cleaning up rubbish and leaves. A lasting impression was left on me by a terminal cancer patient. His bones are wracked in pain, yet he regularly joins others for the weekly wombat walk through the Parklands, then stopping for a coffee and a chat.

I also met the staff. They have a weekly reflections meeting, where one staff member delivers an inspirational talk to remind all what their purpose there is. I would like to share with you some of the eloquent thought-provoking words that left a lasting impression on me, delivered by Huy Nguyen. This is what we spoke about that day, some excerpts from that speech:

What is it that we believe in?

What is it that keeps our common heart beating?

What is it that keeps our smiles beaming?

Is it the belief in the inherent richness of our story?

Is it our collective will to be better than we were yesterday, in the demand to be heard, in the drive for something greater?

Is it the belief in helping people to uncover choices? Where they can choose to be, if they wish, the best versions of themselves they can be. Where they can regain power and agency in their own lives.

Is it the idea that we've been getting it wrong? That maybe our beloved meritocracy is a fraudulent concept manufactured out of a convenient ignorance, built not only on bare knuckle toil but also on the strewn dreams of those unable to participate, those unable to pay the fare?

Maybe it is a false dichotomy between the deserving and the undeserving; one which fails to acknowledge the cries of the meek, and of the fallen. Theirs is but a whimper in the cacophony of greed, the clamour of desperation to simply have more.

It's all around us.

And I wonder if you can hear it.

It is the sound of the street.

It is the sound of cutting wind forcing its way through layers and layers of pre loved fabric. It is the sound of emotional impoverishment. A world populated by anger, confusion and anxiety. A world where desperate and fearful people thrust their frustration at what is near, not necessarily at what is deserving.

It is the sound of a muted forced solitude, of devastatingly low expectation and of a long cultivated mistrust. It is the sound of a frayed, jagged violence most of us will never have the displeasure of knowing.

They are the songs of a poverty that enslave us all, songs that aren't always set to music we may recognise. Music made with the beat from a beaten down heart which refuses to surrender. It, interwoven with a melancholy of loss and fractured regret, punctuated with a broken glass of a bottomless beer bottle; the piercing screech of terror wrapped in an abject loneliness and debilitating boredom.

They, they are the stories of the brave and of the resilient.

They are the tales of those who defy the woeful plot already written for them.

They are the songs of the stayers and of the fighters.

They were the words of Huy Nguyen from the Hutt St Centre. Again, I commend the Hon. Tammy Franks on her initiative.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:20): I rise on behalf of the government to place our position on the record with respect to the select committee proposed by the Hon. Ms Franks. I will start with the most important bit first, and that is that the government will support the establishment of the select committee and will offer at least one of our members to form part of the committee. I think it is important I read the terms of reference quickly for the chamber so that members are aware exactly what the committee will set out to do. The motion is:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on poverty in South Australia, and in particular—

(a) the extent and nature of poverty in South Australia;

(b) the impact of poverty on access to health, housing, education, employment, services and other opportunities;

(c) the practical measures that could be implemented to address the impacts of poverty;

(d) any other relevant matters.

Items two, three and four go through the usual procedural matters of how the committee will conduct itself. The government is pleased to support the committee. It is obviously an extremely important issue that our society faces, and as we get wealthier, the fact is that some are being left behind. As a government, and as a parliament, I think all members would agree that we are obliged to act in any way we can to alleviate what can be an absolutely debilitating circumstance that people find themselves in.

I would also like to point out that one thing that is significant here is that this government is showing in its very early days, through the minister's decision to support the establishment of this committee, that it is open to good ideas from other members. Whether they be on the crossbench or the opposition, it matters not. As a government, we recognise that we are not the only place where good ideas proliferate and we are open to other ideas from other members. I think the minister's decision to support this committee—she may not have done so—on behalf of the government is an indication of exactly that fact.

Turning to the committee itself, it is going to be a very interesting and quite complex committee, I have no doubt, because the way our society is structured the federal system funds most items that directly impact on poverty. I am thinking about things like income support, employment services and the like, most of which tend to be funded at the commonwealth level. There is some crossover at the state level but a lot of these issues are funded at the commonwealth level.

Newstart, for example, is funded at the commonwealth level. There is no question that the level at which Newstart is set will have an impact on exactly the issues that this committee will examine, so I think it is important for the committee to acknowledge at the outset that by necessity there will be time taken to examine issues which are necessarily out of this particular parliament's jurisdiction but nonetheless worthy of broad consideration.

This government's policy supports approaches based on participation, empowering people to make positive changes in their lives and overcoming entrenched disadvantage. I would like to give some background on that more generic statement. The government, through the Department of Human Services, currently provides about $178 million in funding concessions, rebates and other programs that support people in financial stress aimed at alleviating and preventing poverty. That is $178 million, which is no insignificant contribution.

This aligns with the government's strategy to reduce the cost-of-living pressures for individuals and families. Indeed, this is a priority in the '2036' plan that members would no doubt be aware of. Some current programs focus on the financial crisis end of the spectrum, for example, the emergency financial assistance program or support of the food relief entity commonly known as Foodbank.

Other programs provide support for individuals to generate their own income and build financial resilience. For example, the trial LaunchME microenterprise program is giving individuals the opportunity to start very small, at very low cost, in order to provide an opportunity for them ultimately to pull themselves out of poverty, if they have the appropriate ideas, etc., to be suitable for that program.

The South Australian Housing Trust also delivers a broad range of housing programs, including social housing, housing affordability measures, private rental assistance and homelessness services. These will no doubt be matters that will also be investigated by the committee. There is also considerable investment in other portfolios, including education, such as the children's centres we have dotted around the state; health and wellbeing; and the department of industry and skills as well.

Perhaps some relevant statistics need to be placed on the record for a baseline, in a sense. The benchmark for the homeless population count is done through the ABS census. The latest census data, based on the 2016 Census of Population and Housing, was released on 14 March. It found that some 6,224 people were estimated to be homeless in South Australia on census night. That is a 7 per cent increase from 2001, so trending in the wrong direction. However, I think we can take some pride in saying that this 7 per cent increase compares with an increase of some 14 per cent nationally, so South Australia is in that sense at least faring better than the rest of the nation.

Severe overcrowding was the single largest contributor to South Australia's increase, and that is consistent with the national trends. Encouragingly, though, the rate of homelessness amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has actually decreased by 24 per cent, according to the data.

One of the questions I expect the committee will examine is the issue of housing affordability. Again, South Australia fares somewhat better than average on that front because houses do tend to be—I won't say 'cheaper' because no-one would argue they are cheap, but perhaps the right phrase is 'more affordable' relative to the eastern seaboard in particular. Of course, that is then offset to some extent by the fact that wages here are lower on average compared to the eastern seaboard, so there is somewhat of an offset, which I will talk about a bit more in a moment.

The most recent figures for low income housing stress are included in the Report on Government Services released in February this year in relation to the data accrued in 2016-17. The report shows a steady increase in South Australia over the past decade: from 2007-08 where it was 22.4 per cent; 2008-09, 27.8 per cent; 2011-12, 33.6 per cent; 2013-14, 33.2 per cent; and then in 2015-16, after almost a decade, it was 39.4 per cent. So housing stress is an increasing problem for South Australians as well, and one would expect that increased housing stress has an impact on the level of poverty in our community.

Other indicators include various rental affordability indexes, and I think these are significant. Often those in poverty will not own their own home or be fortunate enough to have a roof over their head—even not have a roof at all—but many of them in this unfortunate situation will seek to rent a place, albeit on a temporary basis. The rental affordability index gives us an insight into what the real data shows. Those figures are published annually by Anglicare and Shelter SA, and show that those on the lowest income—Newstart, Youth Allowance and Parenting Payment, for example—have almost no access to homes that are affordable, which is usually interpreted as rent less than 30 per cent of income.

People who find themselves in these circumstances, according to the data that is accrued every year, have 'no access' to affordable homes, which is a very serious situation for government to address, both federally and at a state level. However, as I said, most of these income supplements are, of course, provided at the federal level.

Indices, such as I just outlined and others that examine ratios between property prices and income, have recently shown that South Australia, despite our lower housing costs, on a relative ratio, has the third most expensive rental affordability in Australia. As I indicated before, that is because, whilst our property prices and therefore rents tend to be lower than the eastern seaboard in particular, our income levels are also lower, thus affecting the affordability index. It is very significant and something I have no doubt the committee will turn its mind to.

In terms of unemployment, obviously if one is unemployed then they are at risk of falling—if that is the right term—into poverty, or finding themselves in a situation that might be described as being in poverty; so unemployment rates are very important. The jobless rate in South Australia, in seasonally adjusted terms, has increased, as members would be aware, from 5.6 per cent in March to 5.9 per cent in April. The trend rate is 5.9 per cent.

If we look at the data across the other states, we are not faring particularly well, but we are not faring particularly badly either. We are somewhere in the middle of the pack. If Australia's average is 5.5, as I said, South Australia is now at 5.9, so we are not faring particularly well and not faring particularly badly.

I have a few other points I would like to make before closing my contribution. When one is measuring poverty, things like housing affordability must be treated with caution, noting different approaches. There is what is called absolute poverty and that is the Henderson Poverty Line, as it is known, a measurement that has been around for some time now. So-called relative poverty are households with income less than 50 per cent of equivalent median income, the indicator says.

There is also access to publicly funded services and the like, so there is a whole range of factors that need to be considered when one thinks about exactly what is poverty. I think the simple way of thinking about it is: do people have enough money to meet their basic needs? But, in fact, it can be so much more than that. I assume the committee will look at these issues as well.

The most recent major national report into poverty was produced by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) in 2016 and this was the 5^th edition of the report that examines trends in poverty from 2003-04 to 2013-14 and forms part of a large series by ACOSS and the Social Policy Research Centre. This will be rich material for the committee, I am sure, which no doubt they will have access to and will, I presume, turn their mind to.

On behalf of the government, we recognise that many people struggle with affordability and therefore face falling into poverty. The government provides services that are targeted to assist those in financial stress and help them get back on their feet but recognises that this is a very real problem in the community that would be well served by a parliamentary select committee. For that reason, we support the committee.

I have one final thought on that issue and the mover of the committee may wish to make some comments on this in her summing-up, or she may not. One thing that occurred to me, as the chair of the Social Development Committee, is that these sorts of issues would be well served to be addressed in the Social Development Committee.

That said, as a former member of the crossbench myself, I can fully understand the member's desire to have a select committee. You certainly have more control over the process that the committee undertakes, if you like, so I make no criticism of the decision to adopt a select committee rather than refer it to the Social Development Committee.

But perhaps I can raise the matter for the chamber to consider in the future that I would be very keen to look into this issue. If there were other thoughts about select committees that members in the chamber had that they thought might be suitable for a particular standing committee, such as the Social Development Committee or whatever it may be, I would certainly be happy to talk with those members and see if we could accommodate them as best we can. With that, I indicate government support for what should be a very interesting committee.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:33): One of the great things about going last is watching everyone else talk to what you were going to say. Obviously, the opposition will support establishing the committee to investigate the impacts of poverty and the effects of poverty in regard to health, housing, education, employment, services and other opportunities. Investigating any pathways that could be used to address the impacts of poverty on South Australians is something which the opposition wholeheartedly supports.

In regard to the contributions of the other members, which mostly constituted what I was going to say, they were excellent, and I got an opportunity to note the good diversity and juxtaposition of thought, including the macro position taken by the Hon. Tammy Franks in her original speech to this matter. I think the very localised and personalised account was an excellent contribution by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, and the statistical practicality of what is homelessness and what is poverty, given in the contribution by the Hon. Mr Hood, I also found very instructive. I do not know if the Hon. Mr Hood will be on the committee—I hope so, Dennis, if I am allowed to use your first name. I look forward to listening to all of the thoughts from people in regard to contributions to the committee. It will certainly provide me with a great deal of insight.

I think it is important to note, when we are looking at what we have before us in terms of the outline of the committee, that we are not going to solve everything in regard to poverty, homelessness, or what we are looking at. What we will be able to bring back, I think, or at least I hope, are some measures—to practically look at the measures, to make inquiries into those measures and maybe look at what might be achievable in the capacity that we have.

As the Hon. Mr Hood pointed out, there is a significant involvement by the federal government in regard to what we are doing here. I think it is worth mentioning that, at a time of great inequality and poverty in Australia, there is an unfortunate reality at the federal level that we are looking at providing $65 billion worth of tax breaks to multinational corporations and big banks. We are hoping that these economic benefits will in some way trickle down to the rest of society, which has been comprehensively proven not to work, in practical effect, within the last 30 to 40 years throughout the world.

Nonetheless, I think it is important that, when we are looking at this area, we acknowledge the federal impact that it has had. However, it is also important to look at the local impact. I noted the Premier's comments in regard to one of the local points, which the Hon. Mr Pangallo pointed out, being the Hutt St Centre. His comments were welcomed by everyone who has some knowledge of that debate. I think it is excellent, as has been pointed out by the Hon. Mr Hood, that the minister is seeking to support the creation of this committee.

I would only go a little further and say it would be nice if the government could rule out anybody who is affiliated with any of the major political parties making comments in regard to Hutt Street and their involvement in very poor and negatively run campaigns against the Hutt St Centre. That would be good, but I think it might be a bit much to ask at this time. I go back to the Premier's comments, which were welcome, and I think that they were also well-timed.

With all that, I am not going to beat the contributions of many of the other members—they have said a lot. I will again thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for her passion and dedication to fighting for those in our community who do not have an equal voice, and look forward to working with her on this committee and on those issues.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:37): I rise to offer my support for this motion. I concur with the Hon. Tammy Franks on many of the remarks in her contribution, particularly that it is a great shame that we still have people living in poverty in a developed nation like Australia in 2018. It amazes me that welfare in this country is still viewed as a punitive rather than supportive measure. It is not right that 36.1 per cent of social welfare recipients are living below the poverty line, including 55 per cent of those receiving the Newstart Allowance.

I believe it is time that all major political parties in the federal parliament come together and make it a priority to raise the level of Newstart. It has been more than 20 years since the last rise in Newstart by the then Keating government. Beyond the statistics, of course, there are stories of people who have no food to put in the pantry.

I have seen poverty firsthand, having volunteered for the St Vincent de Paul's Society Home Visitation Program in the western suburbs for many years. These home visitations were not just about delivering food and leaving, they also gave clients the opportunity to sit down and tell their stories. What I came to understand is that these stories were extremely diverse and most did not fit into the typical narrative of a dole bludger gaming the system.

The media's incessant focus on the so-called dole bludger has done a lot of political damage, as it seems that federally there are too few who have the courage to advocate for any increase in Newstart. It is clear that, through this motion and the potential establishment of the committee to investigate ways of addressing poverty, the Hon. Tammy Franks is supporting not only the poor themselves but also the community organisations that bend over backwards to support them.

I also concur with the Hon. Tammy Franks that we should be lauding the work of the Hutt St Centre. It should not sit well with all of us as Australians that 100,000 of our people are homeless every night. It has been a shame to hear a hoax letter that has been sent out to business owners and residents around the Hutt St Centre claiming that its expansion was to be much bigger than has actually been planned. I note that Mr Ross Womersley, the chief executive officer of the South Australian Council of Social Service, is on the record as stating that, by and large, most local residents and businesses are not being swayed by this scare campaign.

Whatever discussions are had about future expansion at Hutt Street, the work that the Hutt St Centre has done since moving into its premises 64 years ago should not be up for discussion. It has been heartening to see both the Premier and the minister, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, portray this sentiment. I believe there is a good deal of bipartisanship here, though. I am aware that state Labor's entire cabinet is participating in this year's CEO sleepout, which raises money to provide people experiencing homelessness with vital access to food and accommodation.

Vinnies will also be using the money to provide education, counselling, employment and health services to help people overcome poverty, hopefully in the long term. Through my own volunteering with Vinnies, I am aware of how much good these organisations can do. There are many organisations, such as the Don Dunstan Foundation, Anglicare, Uniting Communities, Catherine House and Shelter SA, that are working in a very difficult area to alleviate some of the ills that exist in our society.

As the Hon. Tammy Franks has stated in her contribution, it was once claimed by then prime minister Bob Hawke that no child would live in poverty in 30 years. We are almost at that point in time and unfortunately this is still very much an unattainable goal. Setting up a committee to investigate practical ways we can address this issue is a very good step for this council to take.

I would like to talk about what I believe is a very practical example of how we could assist the homeless. I noted some discussion recently about how public spaces are intentionally designed with the purpose of dissuading people from sleeping on benches and other resting places. This was reported in InDaily late last year. Defensive architecture can involve gating off doorways and leftover urban spaces, which provide some refuge for those who have to sleep rough in cities. More insidious is the use of small metal spikes to make surfaces impossible to sleep on.

Seats are designed to slope, dividers are used to prevent people lying down, and walls and paving are designed to be uncomfortable. Other examples have included shower rails which drench anyone using an enclave as a temporary refuge, and music to make sleeping impossible. Perhaps investigating whether these defensive design standards are implemented by our local councils could be a good place to start. It is a very practical issue which, if addressed properly, could provide the slightest bit of comfort to people who are sleeping rough. With that, I fully support this motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:45): I thank all of those members who have made a contribution to this debate and all of those members who have indicated support, both in this council and outside the council, in particular the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Justin Hanson, and the Hon. Tung Ngo, as well as the Hon. Dennis Hood. In terms of the contributions, I will reflect that I really appreciate the contributions made today and the conversations that have happened outside this council with regard to this select committee.

It might seem like an unattainable task, but as I interjected to the Hon. Tung Ngo, in fact our former prime minister, Bob Hawke, when he pledged, although he stumbled on the words, that no child need live in poverty, actually did attain that goal. He set the goal and he attained it. We have lost those goals in our leadership in this country and that is something that I would say is not unattainable, and we only have to look at a prime minister like Jacinda Ardern to see that other countries are taking on this task and setting themselves these goals. But if you have a look at somewhere like Finland, they are achieving these goals because they set them.

Those who do commendable work in this sector are also some of those with whom I have had conversations about bringing this select committee to this parliament: the Hutt St Centre, of course, has been central to some of the drivers of this; the Dunstan Foundation; the Anti-Poverty Network; and those in Ceduna who live and deal with the impact of the cashless welfare card in that town. In recent days, I have also had some contact and information from those in CAPA, the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, whose students are plunged into poverty by some of their circumstances.

Indeed the Greens, this very day in federal parliament, have backed a campaign to lift the minimum wage, because it is not only those who are on income supports, or without income supports through our social security system who are living in poverty, but indeed one in four people in poverty are actually working full time. That is unacceptable and I am hoping that this cross-party committee is not an exercise in virtue signalling but an exercise and an opportunity to give voice to the most vulnerable and those who are helping the most vulnerable, and to listen to that voice and to start to work out a way that we can end a world where a culture accepts poverty when it is not necessary, and it is attainable to end poverty. With those few words, I commend the motion to the council.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:48): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. J.E. Hanson, the Hon. F. Pangallo, the Hon. I. Pnevmatikos, the Hon. T.J. Stephens and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 5 December 2018.

Motion carried.