Limestone Coast Timber Industry

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C.M. Scriven:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the exporting of wood fibre and other matters regarding the timber industry in the Limestone Coast of South Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) whether the exporting of wood fibre is in compliance with the conditions of sale of the radiata pine forests in the Limestone Coast sold by the previous state Labor government;

(b) the volume of radiata pine log being exported from the Limestone Coast area by all growers;

(c) the economic benefit and employment opportunities that could be gained through additional wood fibre based industries should the current exported logs be made available for processing in South Australia;

(d) options for increasing the availability of logs to South Australian processors;

(e) the supply agreements between forest growers and processors; and

(f) 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 1 May 2019.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:24): I move to amend the motion as follows:

In paragraph 1, delete subparagraph (e) and insert new subparagraphs as follows:

(e) a review of water licensing laws applying to forest estates;

(ea) opportunities to strengthen the forest and timber products industries in the Limestone Coast of South Australia, and in particular:

(i) barriers to investment in timber resource and processing capacity;

(ii) opportunities to expand the plantation estate, including greater utilisation of farm forestry;

(iii) strategies available to timber processing businesses to secure long term timber supply;

(iv) strategies to grow domestic manufacturing;

(v) opportunities to maximise returns for timber processors from forest and timber residues;

(eb) policies in other states to constrain resource for specified markets;

(ec) the promotion of the economic contribution of the forest and timber products industry to the South Australian community; and

I rise to speak in support of the motion of the Hon. Clare Scriven to establish a select committee into the timber industry on the state's Limestone Coast, which includes the Green Triangle. This motion had its genesis in the House of Assembly with one of the region's local members, Troy Bell, who has expressed alarm about the one-way traffic of logs leaving the state and the country because of the high prices this timber is attracting overseas, seemingly at the expense of local processors.

Mr Bell has also reported that several companies are being frustrated from investing hundreds of millions of dollars into the industry because of uncertainty in sourcing additional wood fibre. Paradoxically, the Liberal member for MacKillop, Nick McBride, made a glowing speech supporting Mr Bell's original motion, then in a backflip that would have had P.T. Barnum in raptures, he voted with his own party to defeat it. This is the one and the same member who wants to deregulate shopping hours in his heartland town of Millicent and refused to cross the floor to represent the wishes of his electorate, the very people who put him in office.

The motion now finds its way to this chamber, but there is some further irony here, because it was Labor that sold off the significant ForestrySA assets in the South-East against strong advice to the contrary. Now they are putting on an air of concern about a situation they helped create in selling off forward rotations of timber plantings to plantation owner, OneFortyOne. As we know, timber has been a significant contributor to jobs and the economy of communities in that part of the state for more than a century. The sector's value has been put at a total of $1.9 billion, with $1.27 billion of that on the South Australian side and the remainder on the Victorian side. The sector includes growers, forest managers, harvest and haulage processors, and biomass users, equating to about 2,000 jobs within the industry.

It has had its fair share of ups and downs. We have seen a few associated businesses close for various economic reasons, creating concern amongst plantation growers who then needed to urgently find markets for their surplus product. Now, I am informed, it is boom time for growers as demand for Australian timber hits new highs in overseas markets. But there are fears there is not enough stock to satisfy the local domestic demand, said to be the strongest in 15 years, as smaller processing mills are finding themselves having to now negotiate large volumes of logs they say they cannot handle and pay the going rate, which is threatening their viability as well as jobs.

Primary producers are having to import timber products. Does this sound familiar? The country is doing the same thing with its gas. We are now the world's largest exporter of gas, yet we cannot meet local demand. Australia now imports its own gas, at astronomical prices I might add, and it has the flow-on effect on soaring electricity generation costs and higher energy bills. I spoke about this issue last year and suggested we need to look at a gas reservation policy, much like has been in place in Western Australia since the 1970s.

Should there be a similar policy applied to our timber industry, where a percentage is reserved or guaranteed for local processors? Perhaps that is an area that can be explored with the establishment of this committee. The inquiry hopes to ascertain whether growers are complying with the conditions of Labor's fire sale of radiata pine forests, any benefits from expanding wood fibre industries and what can be done to ensure supply to local processors. It will also look at the contentious issue of water licensing.

There is some disquiet among the forestry sector that the committee would seek access to agreements between growers and processors. I can fully understand that disclosure of commercially sensitive in-confidence agreements has the potential to cause a disadvantage and undermine market position and competitive edge. I cannot see any logic in pursuing that kind of delicate and sacrosanct information, as we would not ask or expect the same from other industrial corporations. After all, this is not a royal commission.

However, I can see that for some, including the government, this has the odour of a fishing expedition. I have moved additional amendments to broaden the scope of the committee so that it also looks at how to boost investment in the timber and processing industries, expanding plantation estates, strategies to secure long-term supply and to grow local manufacturing.

SA-Best went to the last election supporting commitments from the Liberals, Greens, Dignity Party, Australian Conservatives, Mr Bell and fellow Independent Richard Sage to establish the Forest Industry Advisory Council. The council has been formed and is due to provide a report on the state of the sector by the end of 2019. An audit has also been announced by minister Whetstone into growers OneFortyOne Plantations to investigate compliance concerns raised by small processors. However, this audit was a pre-election commitment by the minister and only applies to the past 12 months since the Liberals have been in government, not previously. So will it find anything that has not already been fixed?

Meanwhile, nine companies known as the GT9, which represent over 80 per cent of the sector in the Green Triangle, have formed into the forest industry hub, with $1 million from the federal government to advise relevant stakeholders on how best to grow and manage the sector. It might sound like we cannot see the wood for the trees and that we are doubling up with yet another inquiry, but I believe a select committee of inquiry serves to add weight and sunlight to these other inquiries.

The South Australian Timber Processors Association supports this inquiry. Its CEO, David Quill, wrote to me last week expressing his members' fears for the future because of the large volumes of export timber and the lack of continuity of supply of raw materials for the locals. These are also the views of a cohort of mayors from the district councils of Mount Gambier, Grant, Kingston, Naracoorte-Lucindale, Robe and Wattle Range who want a national inquiry that would lead to policies that stimulate investment and create a sustainable domestic supply chain. They have launched a media campaign #AussieTimberJobsFirst to highlight the domestic supply issue and the impact it is having on rural jobs.

Interestingly, the local chapter of the CFMEU has not backed its Labor friends on this. Brad Coates, the Green Triangle's secretary, calls it a political exercise that highlights the obvious, and that is, fibre exports equals job exports. However, what he does want is an inquiry into the restrictive water licensing laws for plantations because that could result in a 25 per cent reduction in plantation estate over the next 15 years. Is there enough scientific evidence that the forests are affecting the region's water table?

Shrinking our forests is at odds with current federal policy to increase the country's forestry estate by 400,000 hectares, or a billion trees, to fight climate change, which means the South-East of our state could miss out on a golden opportunity to secure a long-term viable future for the forestry industry. This is an area the committee must also explore. I commend the motion to the chamber.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:35): It gives me great pleasure to rise today in support of the proposal by Labor's shadow forestry minister to establish a select committee into examining the economic benefits of greater domestic processing and options to improve timber supply to the industry of the Limestone Coast.

I have always believed that good industry policy is consistent industry policy. I have always believed that good industry policy recognises that more than just economic value, primary industry builds community value, and it does it in a key way that we do not always see in our more buzzword, innovative sectors. Primary industry builds regional towns, and it builds them in a way that few other sectors can or historically have, often with the targeted support of government as well as the prudent work of private interests. Labor's proud history of support for many primary industry sectors, such as steel, smelting, mining and grain, shows that they understand the importance of industry generally to our state, as do I, and again Labor and I support it here, this time with respect to the forestry industry.

As I have said can often happen with primary industry, we see the economic and community values of industry coming together in the forestry industry here, this time specifically on our Limestone Coast. There we see how vital the industry is to the South Australian economy, being a major employer on the Limestone Coast, with 22,000 South Australians employed directly and indirectly. What a great industry! It is a thriving community of people and families who bond together and in doing so contribute over $2 billion per year to the South Australian economy—$2 billion.

It is worth noting that the issues surrounding the industry that led to the call for the establishment of this committee are not only being led by the shadow forestry minister and her excellent understanding of her community but also by the industry itself. In particular, I note that the South Australian Timber Processors Association have been leading the charge for a parliamentary inquiry to be set up to address these concerns, along with a number of South-East local government councils who share similar concerns.

I am aware that the South Australian Timber Processors Association are concerned about things like the volume of logs being exported and the lack of continuity of supply of raw materials to the region's timber processors. This lack of supply to their processors is restricting potential growth at their processing facilities as well as restricting investments in their region which could bolster their economy and create further job opportunities.

May I add that these concerns are not just recent ones. The volume and value of logs harvested in Australia were the lowest in a decade only half a decade ago, but this is not a reason not to act. The fact is that volatility in many primary industries can affect those sectors just as violently—and the communities that rely upon them—with fluctuations in the value of logs or timber of over 5 per cent year on year.

The fact is that the issues of the value of timber, the supply of timber and the domestic processing of timber are all something that require monitoring and planning by both the private and sector and government. I know that industry supports this motion. I know that local government representatives in the community support this motion. I know the community supports this motion, and I know Labor supports this motion.

So who else does? I understand this motion has the backing of one of the state's South-East members, the member for Mount Gambier. The member for Mount Gambier also tried to introduce a similar proposal in the other place, but it was defeated by the Marshall Liberal government. I pause to note here that refusing to support primary industry is not entirely out of step for the Marshall Liberal government, unfortunately.

By this I mean that this government, in having voted down this motion in the other place, is maintaining a hands-off-the wheel approach to industry policy and public investment in our regions that started with Arrium and appears to be continuing with its negative attitude and comments to Nyrstar, which have been made in this place, and its refusal to support regional farmers suffering from significant drought conditions.

So we saw the continuation of this cavalier attitude to primary industry, which ignores not only the legitimate concerns of industry but also the concerns of the community and the opportunity for good government policy that can often develop out of the intersection of the two. But here, I have to note, the member for Mount Gambier was not alone in standing up for his community.

What is interesting about the Liberal Party voting down a very similar motion in the other place is that another MP representing a large part of the forestry industry in the South-East, the member for MacKillop, when debating this issue in the other place said:

I believe that a select committee would provide a transparent and bipartisan approach to support a regional industry…

Sounds like me. The member for MacKillop went on and stated:

…I believe, as do my constituents, that we need to take one further step and support the motion to establish a select committee for the purposes described by the member for Mount Gambier.

Outstanding.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: So how did he vote?

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: What followed, though, as the Hon. Clare Scriven has inquired, is a good indication of the hunger games that is so common in the Liberal Party these days. Unbelievably, after speaking in favour of it, the member for MacKillop actually voted against the proposal to establish a select committee, no doubt much to the disappointment and anger of his constituents.

For a party that likes to talk a lot on social media about how regions matter, they sure are doing a lot to let down the regions and ignore what they are saying—drought conditions, Nyrstar, Arrium and now, of course, the forestry industry. And don't they love to talk about it when they are wrong. For a party that likes to talk a lot on social media, they sure do get it wrong a lot outside of this place.

Such is their contempt for motions, such as establishing this committee, that, after voting down the motion in the other place, the Marshall government's minister for agriculture actually wrote to the South-East paper The Border Watch, where he attacked the shadow minister for forestry for introducing this motion to establish a select committee. The minister actually said, on the establishment of this committee, that it would 'make a mockery out of the proud forest industry in South Australia'. Then, bizarrely, recently, we learnt that the Marshall Liberal government would be proposing to support the establishment of the select committee in an amended form.

The fact is that what we see here is a flip-flop, and we see it from this Marshall government in a way that does not support good industry policy. They have flip-flopped on this issue more times than the poor member for MacKillop has. It really is a worry. At least the Liberal Party should be worried but not necessarily about what I am saying. It should be worried about its regional voting base; those who often work in primary industries like forestry live in the regions.

The cavalier attitude that they display again here today, and interrupting me during my speech, has seen them lose four of their supposed regional seat strongholds to Labor or Independents—four of them—Independents like the member for Mount Gambier, who took no backward steps in backing his community and his local industry, unlike those opposite.

This motion is fundamentally about the importance of the forestry industry to the Limestone Coast region and the huge contribution the industry makes to the state's economy—$2 billion. Any measure taken to support the industry, such as the establishment of this committee, which has the support of the forestry industry, should also be supported. Forestry is one of the most significant industries in our regional economy and the communities that surround it, and it is important that we do everything we can to support that industry and those who work and live around it.

As I foreshadowed earlier, concerns have been raised about the ability of processors to access timber supply, particularly small processors but also new businesses wanting to establish facilities in the region and create jobs. This select committee will look at the extent of the problem and explore possible solutions, the Hon. Mr Stephens—it will do that. It is about looking at the best future for the industry and supporting local jobs. This select committee is supported by many within the industry and across the local community.

This is an opportunity to produce greater understanding across all of the region's forestry industry members and look at how timber availability can be better managed for the better management of the area. We need to have the right balance between local jobs, business needs and shareholder needs. I support this motion.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:44): I rise to speak about this motion to establish a select committee to examine the economic benefits of greater domestic processing and options to improve timber supply to the industry on the Limestone Coast. I also note that this committee has very strong support from the very popular member for Mount Gambier, who is very keen to get the select committee on its way.

My Labor colleagues and I understand the importance of the forestry industry to our state and the Limestone Coast. We especially understand how vital the industry is to the economy, being a major employer on the Limestone Coast, with 22,000 South Australians employed both directly and indirectly.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Mr President, I cannot even hear myself talk, let alone—

The PRESIDENT: Order on the government benches!

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: I don't need advice from you seated, the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The industry contributes around $2 billion per year to the South Australian economy. The Hon. Ms Scriven has in recent weeks met with the relevant stakeholders around the purpose and terms of reference of this committee. I, myself, have received correspondence from the councils around the South-East and the Limestone Coast, as well as the South Australian Timber Processors Association in which they expressed their concern for the future of the forestry industry.

The South Australian Timber Processors Association in their letter have voiced their concerns about the current state of the industry and the lack of supply of raw materials to the region's timber processors. The association is concerned that the lack of supply is restricting their potential growth which would be of benefit to the local communities and in turn would also benefit the state's economy and create further jobs on the Limestone Coast.

Labor wants to ensure that we have a healthy and strong forestry industry so that it will continue to grow and create jobs in the region. We believe that any action that can be taken to support the industry is a worthwhile action and should be supported. It is a shame that the state government has refused to do so. I know that the member for Mount Gambier, who is in the chamber today, moved a similar motion in the other place which unfortunately did not receive support from state government.

The Hon. Mr Pangallo has moved an amendment that expands the areas for consideration, and we are happy to support that. In failing to support the proposed terms of this motion, the state government is letting down the people of the South-East. I remind those opposite that all members here represent the South-East and call upon them to represent their constituents by supporting this motion. Unlike those opposite, Labor is listening. We have heard the concerns of the industry and residents of the South-East. We are standing up for them in moving this motion. I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:47): I rise very briefly to put the Greens' support for the establishment of the select committee on record. I commend the Hon. Clare Scriven for bringing this matter before this place. It has certainly been something that is of grave community concern on the Limestone Coast. We have had many representations both for and against, but overwhelmingly for such a select committee. I note that we will be supporting the amendments placed before this council of the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

Before I sit down, I ask that the government provide advice on who wrote their amendments because they are very much the same, almost word for word, as those on a track changes document provided to the Greens in the name of Laurie Hein, with the only difference being that the phrase 'any other related matters' that he had sought to delete is still on this government amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:48): I am very happy to rise to speak and I indicate that we will not be moving our amendment which the Hon. Tammy Franks referred to. I might leave some remarks around who actually sold the forests and who really cared for the industry until the end because I am sure that will distract members. Unlike the Labor Party, the Marshall Liberal government has a plan for the forestry sector. It is a good plan because it has been informed directly from industry.

Before the state election, the industry asked for the Forest Industry Advisory Council. We have delivered on this, and they have started their work. The forestry sector directly employs some 5,500 people and indirectly supports the employment of another 12,500 people, totalling some 18,000 people. The Marshall Liberal government is 100 per cent focused on providing a stable investment environment for the forestry sector and is focused on growing the entire sector, including domestic manufacturing.

We are focused on delivering outcomes on the ground to the sector in the Green Triangle. The Marshall government has delivered on its key election commitment to the forestry industry by establishing the Forest Industry Advisory Council.

The council membership was announced on 13 December last year and includes: Wendy Fennell, managing director of Fennell Forestry; Mark Rogers, managing director of New Forests; Laurie Hein, managing director of Green Triangle Forest Products; Jill Stone, farm forester and owner of Three Streams Farm; Ian McDonnell, managing director of NF McDonnell and Sons; Linda Sewell, chief executive officer of OneFortyOne Plantations; Ian Tyson, chief executive officer of Timberlink Australia; Tammy Auld, chair of the National Institute of Forest Products Innovation; Martin Crevatin, national operations manager at PF Olsen Australia; Peter Badenoch, Plantation Treated Timber; and Emma Daly, executive manager for people and culture and director of Bio Gro.

This group met in April. It is scheduled to meet again in June, and is working at providing specific recommendations back to the government on how to grow the sector by the end of this year. It was clear from the first meeting that measures to grow the plantation estate and domestic manufacturing will be a key theme of that advice.

The federal Forestry Industry Advisory Council provided its advice to the federal Coalition government, which resulted in the National Forest Industries Plan, a $20 million plan to grow the sector and plant a billion new plantation trees. A key ask from the industry was that the federal government acknowledge 'forestry hubs' in regions where plantations and manufacturing are located within economic distance. In the National Forestry Industries Plan the federal government said it would recognise a pilot hub.

Last year, a group of nine forest industry companies in the Green Triangle organised in anticipation of the federal government's forestry hub announcement. The members are AKD Softwoods, NF McDonnell and Sons, New Forests, Green Triangle Forest Products, Australian Bluegum Plantations, Timberlink, Borg Manufacturing, Hancock Victorian Plantations and OneFortyOne. Off its own back this industry group has self-funded several research projects, including the economic contribution of the forest industry to the region.

With the assistance of Ernst and Young they are currently developing a 35-year Green Triangle forestry industry strategic plan. The plan focuses on growing the sector, and may work to fast track advice to government on this issue. Just last month strong forestry advocate and Liberal member for Barker, Tony Pasin, announced that another million dollars of funding will be provided to the Green Triangle Forestry Industry Hub. This funding will be used to complete the strategic plan.

Last year, minister Whetstone met with the South Australian Timber Processors Association, which represents three small processors from the Green Triangle. At this meeting the association raised concerns with the minister that OneFortyOne was not complying with their agreement with the state government. Minister Whetstone committed to the association, during that meeting, to undertake an audit of OneFortyOne's compliance for the 2018 year, focused on the concerns of these processors.

Once the annual compliance report was lodged with PIRSA, as set out in the lease agreement, independent auditors BDO Advisory were appointed to undertake the independent audit of the plantation lease agreement with OneFortyOne. BDO has partnered with specialist forestry sector advisory firm Indufor to undertake the independent audit. Both BDO Advisory and Indufor have extensive experience and capabilities to undertake an audit of this nature.

The Indufor team working on the audit has 71 collective years' experience in the forestry industry. The South Australian Timber Processors Association wanted the auditor to be experienced in forestry, and we have delivered on this. The audit is a comprehensive process that will focus on their compliance with conditions attached to the plantation lease agreement it has with the state, particularly those relating to domestic sawlog supply.

The areas to be covered in the audit will include whether OneFortyOne has met the following requirements during 2018:

the area weighted average clear fall age;

the tender process for uncontracted sawlog in excess of planned viable domestic supply;

the sale contract lengths for sawlog exports; and

the amount of sawlog and pulp log exported and if those logs were appropriately classified.

In addition, a review of the ancillary confidential documents between the state and OneFortyOne, including agreements, deeds, contracts or similar, will be undertaken to determine whether those documents contain any undertakings relating to the supply of product to domestic manufacturers not covered by the lease, and whether those undertakings, if they exist, have been adhered to for the calendar year 2018.

We actually welcome the Labor Party's new interest in the forestry sector. When asked by the sector during the last election, the Labor Party had no plan at all for the forestry sector. During the last Labor government we could not even find a member on the Labor side who would co-chair a parliamentary friends of the forest group.

How things have changed. Now we have a shadow minister keen to meddle and play political games at the expense of the industry. If asked now, the industry probably preferred it when the Labor Party did not—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: the speaker just reflected improperly on the motives of the mover of this motion.

The PRESIDENT: Restrain your enthusiasm for reflection.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is a substantive motion. I think I am allowed to—

The PRESIDENT: I ask you to restrain yourself.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If asked now, it probably would have preferred if the Labor Party did not know that forestry existed. On 21 March this year, the member for McKillop and the shadow forestry minister launched the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry. At the launch there was talk about the need to avoid partisan politics with the sector, which has suffered much from that approach. I know that the member for MacKillop meant those words, and he takes seriously his role to advocate for the forestry industry in his electorate.

On 4 April this year, exactly two weeks before talking about the need for a bipartisan approach, the shadow forestry minister was in the house laying on the table the motion for this select committee, and we all know the political reasons. The South-East knows it, the whole forestry industry knows it, and it is disappointing that the sector has been betrayed by somebody who worked in the forestry sector.

It is interesting to note: I was recently made aware of some comments made by the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Malinauskas, in Mount Gambier, where they said that this sale was regrettable. They said that it was not a good outcome. I just want to recap. It was the member for Mount Gambier, many years ago, a minister in a Labor government, who opened the door for the then treasurer, Kevin Foley, I think as the minister at the time said, 'to have a creative look' at the revenue from—not the forward rotations, but a 'creative look at how they could use the forward revenue'. And we have had a number of committees.

It is interesting that the then premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, said at one stage that he would love to have a 'future fund' for South Australia, something we could invest in for our children's future and our community's future. But then they went ahead and sold the forests. One of the investing partners is the Australian Future Fund; so it was good enough for the nation to invest in our forests, and this mob had to sell it.

I was really interested to see the comments made by the Hon. Clare Scriven and Mr Peter Malinauskas, the Leader of the Opposition, that, 'Oh, but this decision was made before we were in parliament.' Well, I remind members that Mr Peter Malinauskas was the head of the SDA, the most powerful union in the state. He had the power to walk into Mike Rann's office and sack him as Premier. He could have stood up at any one of at least five, if not 10, state conferences and moved a resolution not to sell the state's forests. Any one of these members opposite could have done that.

The Hon. Clare Scriven, who worked in the industry, could have done that. I am sure the Hon. Russell Wortley, I am sure the Hon. Ian Hunter, the Hon. Justin Hanson—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On a point of order, Mr President: I draw your attention to standing order 186:

The President may call attention to the conduct of a Member who persists in continued irrelevance, prolixity or tedious repetition, and may direct such Member to discontinue speaking and to be seated.

The PRESIDENT: With respect, the Hon. Ms Franks, I do not think the Hon. Mr Ridgway quite got to that point, but—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am talking about—

The PRESIDENT: I have ruled in your favour, the Hon. Mr Ridgway; it is not a debate, but you are aggravating me with your constant references to the Hon. Mr Malinauskas. Please refer to him either as the Leader of the Opposition in the other place or by his correct title with the seat in which he was elected.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: I do not need anyone else putting in their two cents' worth.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to Mr Peter Malinauskas as the member for Croydon and Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe he is entitled to the title 'honourable'.

The PRESIDENT: No, I was not asking for him to be called 'honourable'. I am asking you to call him by his seat.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What I am trying to point out, Mr President, is that these people opposite, all lovely energetic stalwarts of the Labor Party, sat silently at every state conference while Kevin Foley and the team sold the forests. They sat silently. We were ones that kept—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There were log trucks out the front of this place and you sat there and did nothing. You were probably even in cabinet. You were just happy to sit there and let it go.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr President, they hate it when you bring back the truth. They were the ones who sold the forests. You were the ones to blame for this. We warned you against it. You sold it for a fraction of its value to build Adelaide Oval and now you are trying to reinvent history. They go down to Mount Gambier and say, 'Oh, it was a bad idea.' Give me a break! We had warned them, they did not listen—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: The South-East people are not stupid.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That's right, the South-East people are not stupid. They know who sold the forests. We warned them against it. When this mob opposite were in government they did not want to listen and so here we are today with an industry that is very concerned—a $2 billion industry—and they laugh, they think it is a joke. You sold it, your lot sold it. You were members of the Labor Party, in those state conferences, and you could have done something against it. You did nothing.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You have no credibility in the South-East, none of you.

The PRESIDENT: Through me, the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: None of them, Mr President. So we will support the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment to this select committee and we are happy to see it progress, but I would point out to members opposite that they have no credibility in the South-East. They were the ones who sold it. They turned their back on the South-East. Most of them do not even know where it is. More people on this side of the chamber live in the South-East than on that side of the chamber. With those few words, we will support the amendment and support the establishment of the select committee.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:59): I find it quite remarkable that the Labor side is being accused of political games and partisanship after the diatribe that we have just heard.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Can the government benchers restrain themselves? The Hon. Ms Scriven is summing up the debate. It is not a repechage. Please sum up the debate.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, you are a minister, act like a minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: He does not know how.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Scriven, it is a summing-up of the debate; it is not a further engagement in the debate.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Indeed. Thank you for your direction, Mr President. I would like to thank for their contributions the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Justin Hanson, the Hon. Russell Wortley, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Mr Ridgway. I would also like to thank the member for Mount Gambier for bringing an almost identical motion to the other place. I will just sum up to point out the incredible flip-flops that we have seen from the government on this. We had the member for MacKillop in the other place talking about how keen and important it was that this committee should progress. He then voted against it.

We brought it here to this chamber and we have seen the government attempt to move an amendment that would actually change all of the terms of reference and be replaced with their own. They then advise us today that they are not progressing with that. The terms of reference are obviously included in the Hon. Mr Pangallo's amendments and the Labor opposition is happy to support them. The toing and froing from the government benchers on this in both this chamber and in the other place has been absolutely remarkable, and it is incredible that they then say—and what I would point out too is that—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, please cloak yourself with restraint and be demure.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would point out that the motion that I have brought to this chamber does not seek to take out those parts for which the Labor Party will be criticised, so to suggest that we are trying to be partisan and that we are trying to play political games is incredibly ironic. The part that was originally proposed to be removed by the Liberal government in their amendment, which they are now not proceeding with, was the very part that we may have reason to have a lot of criticism about.

I think it is a shame that in fact the Liberal government is making this a political football. There was no need for it to be. They could have supported the motion of the member for Mount Gambier. If they so desired, they could have referred it to a standing committee in the other place. I note that the Hon. Mr Stephens said that apparently it must be political because we were attacking the member for MacKillop. When someone says that they fully support something that their constituents want and then vote against it, I do not think that person needs any help from us in order to make the front page of the local media.

I will now return to the substance of the motion, including the amendments—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Stephens, please!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, which we will be supporting. It is to support the industry, it is to look at solutions going forward, it is to look at where we are now as well as where we have been, and to look for ways to support local processes and to support the development of the industry. I therefore commend the motion to the chamber.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Scriven, your work is not yet done. You need to move who will be on that committee.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: I assume that honourable members know that there are television cameras in here.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Russell Wortley, the Hon. Terry Stephens, the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: 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 3 July 2019.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr President, I crave your indulgence. On behalf of members, the Hon. Mr Darley has a very important engagement to get to tonight, an 82^nd birthday. We wish him a happy birthday for this evening.