Murray-Darling Basin

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the South Australian government decision to endorse socio-economic criteria for efficiency measures to deliver 450 gigalitres of water for the environment at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council on 14 December 2018, with particular reference to—

(a) the advice considered by the South Australian government and the Minister for Environment and Water in making the decision to endorse the socio-economic criteria and who provided that advice;

(b) the rationale for supporting the socio-economic criteria;

(c) the resources applied in the Department for Environment and Water in providing advice to the minister on the management of the Murray-Darling Basin;

(d) the current and potential options for the best available science to inform such decision-making;

(e) the advice the Minister for Environment and Water sought that suggested the South Australian government was legally able to override the existing socio-economic criteria outlined in section 7.12(2)(b) of the basin plan;

(f) the consideration given by the Minister for Environment and Water to the recommendations from the independent report provided by Ernst and Young for the basin ministerial council on delivering the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment;

(g) any recommendation, finding or observation in the report of the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission 2019, as deemed relevant by the committee; and

(h) any other related 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 13 February 2019.)

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:32): There are some issues that you anticipate debate on in this chamber, but when it comes to the Murray River this parliament has a history of being united in the fight against upstream states. Australia's longest river meanders across hot political state borders before reaching the Murray Mouth. We know that it is a tough fight being the smallest-populated state at the bottom of the river, but the battle to keep the upstream states honest has often been a bipartisan South Australian political fight.

We know, as a small state, that we stand a better chance of winning the fight against our thirsty upstream states if we stand together. When it comes to water, the lifeblood of this state, the community rightfully expects politicians to stand together to fight for what is best for South Australia, our irrigators, our communities and our great Murray River.

We all know in this chamber that the Murray is much more than a source of drinking water. We know towns like Renmark, Berri, Loxton and Meningie rely heavily on the river not only for irrigation but for tourism. We know that 450 gigalitres of water needs to be delivered back to the system, but what we had not anticipated was a dud deal negotiated not by the upstream states but by the government of South Australia. Those opposite and our Minister for Water boasted about their brilliant relationship with the federal government and their hardline negotiation skills, yet you have sold us up the river to your mates.

In contrast, the previous Labor government did not surrender to the federal government's political interests. We did not surrender to sandbagging the swinging federal seats in the Eastern States. The Labor government did quite the opposite. We shone a spotlight on the allegations of rorting and corruption by establishing the royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a royal commission presided over by one of the most respected legal minds in the nation. The royal commission report is in and it is damning of the conduct of the member for Black, the rollover minister. The royal commission found, and I quote:

…no Minister acting reasonably could consider these changes to the criteria to be anything but totally antipathetic to the interests of South Australia, and the South Australian environment. South Australia’s agreement to these changes should be immediately reversed.

He also found that the minister had acted 'so contrary to the interests of South Australians' that he almost certainly breached section 2.5, at least, of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. These words are unequivocal, they are not open to interpretation, and they are there in black and white. They are the words of an independent umpire, a record no minister wants nor no South Australian community wants or deserves.

When the Hon Ian Hunter was the minister for water and the River Murray he fought for the Murray. Honourable members will always remember the infamous ice cream incident. As the Hon. Ian Hunter put it at the time:

Mr Joyce has his eyes on $1.77 billion allocated to buy 450GL for the River Murray’s environmental health—and he’s not going to get it…

We all know Mr Joyce has little to no interest in environmental flows or what happens in South Australia. Mr Joyce, his federal colleagues and, it now appears, the Liberal state government have no interest in backing the state at the bottom of the river but are more interested in sandbagging their political outcomes in Queensland and New South Wales in the lead-up to the federal election.

The Hon. Ian Hunter made his views known and was very clear about his interstate and commonwealth colleagues and the former federal minister's lack of commitment to the River Murray for South Australia. The same cannot be said for the current minister, the member for Black. The member for Black sold out our water to his thirsty upstream mates. He sold out our economy that relies so heavily on the Murray. He sold out our communities and he has sold out our state.

The message to the east coast and the commonwealth states is simple: yes, there is a new government in town, a government not willing to take up a fight, to hold the hardline. When you go to Canberra and politically agree with everybody in a way that is fundamentally contrary to the interests of South Australia, that is not standing up for South Australia. What is most disappointing is that the sell-out did not stop with the minister; it went straight to the top.

The member for Dunstan, the Premier of this state, decided to show leadership by walking into the other place to denounce the royal commission's recommendations and findings behind the safety net of parliamentary privilege, going as far to say, 'I think the minister has done an excellent job negotiating with the commonwealth'—hardly the actions becoming of a Premier. The extraordinary response from the government is hardly the actions of a Premier putting the interests of South Australia first. Given the government's reaction to these findings of Commissioner Bret Walker, we need a select committee to look into these issues. Clearly, we are not going to get answers from a government that has sold out our river, and that is why am very proud to support the establishment of this committee.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:37): The fact is, there is a growing tide of public opinion, royal commission recommendations and, now, Australia's leading scientists all supporting immediate action on supporting environmental flows into the Murray-Darling Basin. The environment and water minister, the member for Black, stands accused of no less than selling out South Australia's interest to pander to his Liberal colleagues in the commonwealth and New South Wales. It goes almost without saying that this is no small thing. In my time of following South Australian politics, and indeed federal politics, I cannot remember the last time a sitting minister kept his job despite a royal commission finding against them.

That said, there has been strange commentary from some government members in the other place that somehow the royal commissioner and the commission itself is less than proper. I find such commentary bizarre, given that literally the day after the member for Black and the minister for water and the environment faced a no-confidence motion against him in the other place, we saw new and damning evidence arise supporting the royal commissioner's findings. Very concerning court proceedings interstate have revealed evidence of the then New South Wales water minister in 2015 informing cotton growers in the Barwon-Darling that they could access water during a water embargo.

Further and somewhat more well-documented, of course, we know that the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission released by the government just a few months ago specifically highlighted minister Speirs' decision to give up South Australia's claim on 450 billion litres of water as being contrary to the interests of this state. Further to this, the counsel assisting the royal commission, Richard Beasley SC, has made some extraordinary commentary in the media that goes as follows:

What Minister Speirs said was that they're reason we changed that is we first got $70 million for the Coorong. Now, I don't know what that means they're going to do with the $70 million, but I do know, and I don't mean this flippantly, you can't give a $50 note to a migratory bird or to the native fish in the Coorong. They need water.

Secondly, he said by agreeing to that change…I got New South Wales and Victoria back to the negotiating table. Now, that might be right, but it seems really odd that a plan that's meant to work through cooperation can only work for SA if SA capitulates on matters vital to it so that New South Wales and Victoria again sit at a table. To do what? What I'd be asking if I was a South Australian citizen…Premier Marshall and Minister Speirs, when are you are going to get this 450 billion litres of water, and how are you going to get it now? It's a strange negotiating tactic to capitulate on your own interests in order to continue a negotiation.

That is damning commentary from the royal commission counsel. The royal commission, for its part, clearly stated in its report:

It is so contrary to the interests of South Australians that the decision by the Minister responsible is almost certainly a breach of at least clause 2.5 of the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct in that no Minister acting reasonably could consider these changes to the criteria to be anything but totally antipathetic to the interests of South Australia, and the South Australian environment.

Put simply, it is well past time that the state government accept the findings of the royal commission, accept that there is action that needs to be taken on how water is allocated in our state and interstate as part of that plan, accept that the government has given away 450 billion litres of water to just keep talking and accept that the government, through its water minister, has acted contrary to the interests of this state.

Had it been less than 12 months ago, we know that the existing minister and the member for Black would have agreed with all of these things. In March 2018, when he took over as the new environment and water minister, David Speirs said the following in an ABC radio interview:

I'm not going to be a pushover by any means, I'm going to be a strong voice and a loud voice for South Australia when it comes to the River Murray…I'm going to advocate very loudly for South Australia and in particular the rights of South Australians when it comes to the River Murray. I am 100 per cent committed to the royal commission.

Well, it plainly appears that he is not. It plainly appears that there have been decisions made interstate and decisions made by the water minister from here that require detailed scrutiny in the light of exactly the kinds of criteria that are in the scope of this proposed committee.

For months now, the minister, the member for Black, has rigidly stuck to his position that he did nothing wrong. He rejected the royal commission's criticism of him. Meanwhile, the Premier's only response—other than some bizarre comments made under privilege in the other place—and comments to the royal commission have been to write a letter to the Prime Minister, asking for an early meeting with the Murray-Darling Basin ministers, which appears to have been rejected.

It seems bizarre to say that the government's only response to the very important investigation into the Murray-Darling Basin appears to be nothing at all, but that is exactly what is happening here. So it appears that we need to take action ourselves again, in the same way that it was the Labor Party that established the Save the River Murray Levy, where we fought for and delivered the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We secured $1.77 billion for the River Murray to ensure that it received enough water after the last drought. We fought for and won an additional 450 billion litres of environmental flows for South Australia. We established a royal commission into water theft, and we will act on the recommendations received.

The fact is that, after the royal commission's findings, it is only Labor who is willing to head to Canberra to meet with scientists and federal decision-makers to make sure that our state gets a fair deal. Once again, in supporting this committee, we have to call on Labor, with our proven track record of fighting for our state and the river, to act once again, to establish the committee and to look into what happened.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:44): I rise on behalf of SA-Best to speak in support of this motion, which seeks to establish a select committee to inquire into and report on the South Australian government decision to endorse socio-economic criteria for efficiency measures to deliver 450 gigalitres for the environment.

It is clear to SA-Best and our federal colleagues, Centre Alliance, that the South Australian water minister chose to sell out this state instead of having the courage to stand up to the other state water ministers at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council on 14 December 2018 to agree to terms on how environmental water would be returned to rivers. The meeting agreed to return up to 450 gigalitres of water to the environment, provided—and I stress, provided—it did not have negative socio-economic impacts on river communities, based on a criteria agreed to by the states.

In return, South Australia received $70 million of funding from the federal government to spend on rehabilitating the struggling Coorong wetland—an absolute pittance and a contemptible deal which I liken to the 30 pieces of silver paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus. Our very own water minister fell like a pack of cards, and his reckless and disastrous decision will only be to the detriment of all South Australians but particularly those who rely on the River Murray. In his report that followed, the Murray-Darling Basin royal commissioner, Bret Walker, said:

The South Australian Government’s agreement to changes to the socio-economic criteria for efficiency measures should not merely be described as ill-advised. It is nothing short of a capitulation to the interests of the current Commonwealth Government, and those of Victoria and New South Wales.

It is a decision that defies explanation, because the deal with upstream states was totally against South Australia's interests. Commissioner Bret Walker SC was scathing about the decision of the South Australian water minister. He said:

It is so contrary to the interests of South Australians that the decision by the Minister responsible is almost certainly a breach of at least cl 2.5 of the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct…

Just so we are all on the same page, clause 2.5 of the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct reads as follows:

Ministers should not make an official decision without first giving due consideration to the merits of the matter at hand and the impact the decision is likely to have on the rights and interests of the people involved and the citizens of South Australia.

The commissioner went on to say in his report:

…no Minister acting reasonably could consider these changes to the criteria to be anything but totally antipathetic to the interests of South Australia, and the South Australian environment.

Recklessly, I believe, but not surprisingly, Premier Marshall has backed his water minister, and members of his government and the Morrison Coalition government have attacked Commissioner Bret Walker. The attacks on the head of the royal commission are absolutely unprecedented. Minister Spiers took a swipe at Commissioner Walker, saying, 'His title does not elevate him to an untouchable deity.' I say this to the South Australian water minister: your title denotes that you must elevate the needs of South Australia and South Australians above all else.

I want to thank Commissioner Walker for undertaking a complex and detailed investigation on the issues in already difficult circumstances, but which were further hampered by the Marshall government and the federal Coalition government mounting a High Court bid to prevent it and Murray-Darling Basin Authority staff from giving evidence. Commissioner Walker's report is a damning indictment on the Marshall government and, as expected, the federal government and the upstream states that pillage the entire Murray-Darling Basin system.

It is clear to me that parliamentary scrutiny in the form of the proposed committee is absolutely essential. We must have answers regarding what advice the minister and the Premier were relying on when they took their decision on 14 December 2018. The state government campaigned on a platform of accountability and transparency and it continues to champion those lauded ideals. SA-Best intends to hold them to it. SA-Best stands with Labor and the Greens on this issue, which is so integral to the vitality of the state.

Briefly, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the tireless advocacy of our team's federal members, past and present, on the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. Indeed, one of our proudest achievements has been to secure $900 million in extra funding for the Murray-Darling Basin. I commend my federal Centre Alliance colleague, Senator Rex Patrick, for taking the lead and working hard on this most important issue at a federal level for the benefit of all South Australians.

Finally, I have had discussions with the shadow attorney's office regarding an inclusion to the motion and I trust that they see the benefit of that inclusion and support it. To that end, I now move the following amendment to the motion, inserting an additional clause after clause (g) as follows:

(ga) Any recommendation, finding or observation in the Productivity Commission's Murray-Darling Basin five year review, as deemed relevant by the committee.

With those words, I am extremely pleased on behalf of SA-Best to be supporting this motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:50): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the establishment of this select committee and I echo much of what many of my colleagues have said. We all know that we are in the driest state on the driest inhabited continent on the planet. We are at the end of the line when it comes to the river and we are often in the dark when it comes to the truth.

The Greens strongly supported the state royal commission in lieu and in the absence of a federal royal commission, which should have been the rightful reaction of a federal government if they truly had the best interests not just of the environment but of the communities that so depend on this at heart. The Greens believe it is quite damning for a commissioner to write of any minister that their actions are:

…nothing short of capitulation to the interests of the current Commonwealth Government, and those of Victoria and New South Wales.

To continue:

…so contrary to the interests of South Australians that the decision by the Minister responsible is almost certainly a breach of at least cl 2.5 of the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct.

It is fair to gain clarity on these words as to why the decision was made and as to how it might or might not be in South Australia's interests, and that is indeed why this select committee is needed.

The Marshall Liberal government has enjoyed telling us on many occasions that it will be a government that looks at the facts, looks at the evidence and it will be transparent in its decision-making. It seems only fair that all of these things now be required of the Marshall Liberal government, and certainly will be made possible through the establishment of this select committee.

I was recently at a community meeting in the Coorong in relation, of course, to the plight of the Murray River and the Lower Lakes. One of the many community members who attended noted that:

Science is the language of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but those tasked with its implementation don't seem to speak it.

Another member of that community meeting, 'Bluey', noted that on his understanding it was like Tiddalik, the giant frog of the Dreamtime. Indeed, it seems more akin to fairytales and Dreaming stories as we see the Murray-Darling Basin Plan unfold.

As a child, I was very aware of Tiddalik, my mother hailing from parts of this country that Tiddalik was well known in. For those members who are not aware of Tiddalik, Tiddalik was the largest frog in the entire world. One very warm morning, he woke up with a feeling that he was very thirsty and he started to drink the fresh water. He drank and he drank and he kept drinking until all of the water in the entire billabong was gone. Jokingly, at the community meeting, I wondered if the former deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, might actually be Tiddalik, but I digress.

The other animals at the billabong, seeking their morning drink and finding nothing there for them, came up with various ways to make Tiddalik laugh to try to coax him into releasing the water. The echidna and the wombat tried to entertain him, to tickle him, and eventually the kookaburra made Tiddalik laugh with her laugh. But this is no laughing matter, and making Tiddalik laugh will certainly not release the water.

What we need to know is who Tiddalik is in this case and base that on the science. That is why this committee is quite vital. We need to know what advice, if any, was made available to the minister and whether it was followed. However, it is not just the Marshall Liberal government in South Australia that has been responsible for the negotiation and implementation of this plan. We know from that report of the royal commission and from the Productivity Commission reports that the answers we seek are still not there, and there is still so much more to do. The fact is that the history of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been one of mismanagement, corruption, misinformation and the successive irresponsibility of governments.

The expanded scope of this committee in the government's amendments is supported by the Greens and, on the face of it, the expanded scope put today by SA-Best will be supported by the Greens, as will the amendment put up by the opposition to increase the number of members on the committee. We need to look for solutions and ways forward and find those essential ways for getting the water back for our environment and for our communities.

The Greens will be supporting the creation of this select committee and are willing to do the heavy lifting to make it happen. This parliament and the public deserve to know just why a government would capitulate, why other states act the way they do and that all of our interests are being served, as has been claimed, in the best interests of this state, for our river and for our communities that are crying out for help.

We do need to know who Tiddalik is here. As I said, I think that Barnaby Joyce fits the description, but perhaps there are a few more suspects that this select committee will uncover as we separate fiction from fact.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:57): Whilst the Hon. Mr Stephens might want to call the Hon. Ms Lensink to make her contribution, is it competent for me to now move my amendment?

The PRESIDENT: Yes, please, I ask that you move your amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out paragraph 2 and insert new paragraph as follows:

2. That the committee consist of six members and that the quorum of members necessary to be present at all meetings of the committee be fixed at three members, and that standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

As noted by the Hon. Ms Franks in her contribution, I move that amendment because of the stampede of interest of honourable members who want to join this committee. It will expand the committee from the normal five to six and, just as we did when setting up the select committee into the Adelaide Oval, we are making the quorum three members. I commend the amendment to the house.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (16:59): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out paragraph 1 and insert new paragraph as follows:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the findings of the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and Productivity Commission as they relate to decisions of the South Australian government, with particular reference to—

(a) the advice considered by the South Australian government in making the decision to endorse the equivalent of 3,200 gigalitres of environmental benefits and whether it represented an environmentally sustainable level of take under the Water Act;

(b) the rationale for the South Australian government supporting a package of measures at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council on 14 December 2018, including the socio-economic criteria;

(c) the current and potential options for the best available science to inform such decision-making;

(d) the consideration given by the South Australian government to the recommendations from the independent report provided by Ernst and Young for the Basin Ministerial Council on delivering the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment;

(e) any recommendation, finding or observation in the report of the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission 2019, as deemed relevant by the committee; and

(f) any other related matters.

As the council would be aware, the South Australian government received the royal commissioner's report on 29 January 2019 and publicly released the report on 31 January. The 746-page report contains 44 recommendations and 111 key findings. Significantly, the report largely focuses on events, actions and decisions which occurred during a period when the Liberal Party did not hold office in South Australia.

The report included findings and recommendations on a broad range of themes, including the need for increased transparency, a new determination of the environmentally sustainable level of take, modification of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, the need to redo the Northern Basin Review, better recognition of Aboriginal people, the need to factor climate change into the plan, recovering the remaining water through buybacks from the market, using compulsory acquisition to deal with constraints to environmental water delivery, the role and performance of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and establishment of an independent audit function.

We saw in parliamentary debate that the opposition wants to focus on one finding and commentary of the royal commission in relation to negotiation of additional socio-economic criteria for the assessment of efficiency measures projects at the December 2018 Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting and, in particular, the decisions of the Minister for Environment and Water. This focus on one finding of the royal commission report out of 111 findings and which is related to only one of the 44 recommendations is reflected in the proposed terms of reference in the honourable member's motion.

The government proposes to amend the motion to broaden the terms of reference to also include decisions made by the former government in agreeing to the basin plan and the environmental water recovery amount. Findings in relation to the environmentally sustainable level of take comprise a significant proportion of the findings of the royal commission, and this approach should ensure the select committee focuses on a broader range of issues. An examination of the royal commission findings as they pertain to decisions of both the current and former South Australian governments in relation to the basin plan provides an opportunity for the select committee to undertake a potentially useful and insightful inquiry and obtain maximum value from the effort and powers of a select committee.

Likewise, the select committee terms of reference should also be broadened to include recommendations of the Productivity Commission's Murray-Darling Basin Plan five-year assessment, which was released on 25 January 2019. The Productivity Commission points out that, although many positive achievements have been made, particularly in relation to water recovery and environmental water management, significant challenges still remain. For example, the Productivity Commission has found that current institutional and governance arrangements pose a risk to the next phase of implementation, and this is something that could be explored by our state moving forward.

It simply makes good sense for a select committee of parliament to consider the recommendations of both reports together. We are proposing that the terms of the select committee should be broadened to inquire into the findings of both the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Productivity Commission as they relate to decisions of the South Australian government rather than a single aspect of a single event. This does not preclude the committee from investigating the decision reached at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in December. If we want to ensure that the select committee delivers a worthwhile service to the parliament and best uses its powers to investigate these issues in detail, these decisions need to be considered in the context of many years of decision-making by the current and former governments.

With reference to particular paragraphs, subparagraph (a) is to be amended to include the decision to endorse the equivalent of 3,200 gigalitres of environmental benefits and whether it represented an environmentally sustainable level of take under the water act. The royal commissioner has been particularly critical of what he sees as political compromises made by all jurisdictions in the formation of the basin plan, and as such the committee should look into what role the South Australian government has played in this compromise.

Subparagraph (b) is to be amended to the rationale for the South Australian government supporting a package of measures at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council on 14 December 2018. The decision by the Minister for Environment and Water to agree to amend socio-economic criteria was not a decision made in isolation. It was part of a negotiated package to break the stalemate and included commitments for on-farm projects which previously New South Wales and Victoria had refused to participate in. It also included measures to address constraints to the delivery of environmental water, an issue that the commissioner himself identifies as being of key importance to the successful delivery of the basin plan.

It is proposed that subparagraph (c) be deleted. It is unclear what is intended by this subparagraph. We know that the minister has a department providing advice to him and these same resources were in place under the previous government. It is proposed that subparagraph (e) be deleted. This subparagraph is not warranted as there is clearly no legal overriding going on. The act specifically states that arrangements can be proposed by the states and approved by the ministerial council. Subparagraph (f) amends to South Australian government, and subparagraph (g) should be deleted, because it is superfluous given our proposed amendment to broaden the scope.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:06): Just very briefly, I wish in summing-up to thank all members who have made contributions on this important issue. The contributions that have been made, I think, reflect the absolute importance of the River Murray to this state. This is reflected in the contribution of many members. I look forward to the committee getting on and doing the important work as charged to do by this chamber.

The PRESIDENT: There are a number of questions that I need to put to members, given there is a series of amendments. The first question I am going to put is that all words in paragraph 1 down to, but excluding, subparagraph (h) stand part of the motion. If you support the Hon. Mr Maher's motion, you would vote yes to that, in the affirmative. If you support the amendments of the Hon. Ms Lensink, you would vote no.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The next question I put is that the new paragraph 1(a) to (e), as proposed to be inserted by the Minister for Human Services, be so inserted.

Amendment carried.

The PRESIDENT: I now put the question that the new subparagraph (ga) as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. C. Bonaros be so inserted.

Amendment carried.

The PRESIDENT: I now put the question that the new paragraph 2 as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. I.K. Hunter be so inserted.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. C. Bonaros, the Hon. T.A. Franks, the Hon. D.G.E. Hood, the Hon. I.K. Hunter, the Hon. T.J. Stephens and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and report on 3 July 2019.

Motion carried.