Privatisation

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:17): I move:

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

(a) the cost to the public of privatised services;

(b) the quality of privatised services and the outcomes for the public, particularly with respect to disadvantaged members of the public;

(c) the impact on employment rates, conditions and locations, especially rural and regional employment;

(d) the effect on income and wealth inequality;

(e) the effect on public participation, social cohesion and public perception of the role of government; 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, during the period of any declaration of a major emergency made under section 23 of the Emergency Management Act 2004 or any declaration of a public health emergency made under section 87 of the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, members of the committee may participate in the proceedings by way of telephone or videoconference or other electronic means and shall be deemed to be present and counted for purposes of a quorum, subject to such means of participation remaining effective and not disadvantaging any member.

4. 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.

5. 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.

This is a motion to establish a select committee of the Legislative Council to inquire into and report on the privatisation of services in South Australia. With South Australia now one of the most privatised states in the country, we need a wideranging inquiry into the impact of almost three decades of privatisation. From the sale of our water supply and electricity services to the complete debacle that is our public transport system, it is clear that private profits have been put before the public good and before quality public services.

It is clear that a number of members of the community, a vast majority of people in the community, are concerned about what is happening when it comes to the privatisation of their essential services. Research from the Australia Institute in 2019 found that 40 per cent of South Australians blame the privatisation of our state-owned electricity provider as the single biggest reason for power price increases, and three out of five people (60 per cent) consider it to be one of the main sources of upward pressure on prices.

This report also found that price gouging from energy companies was the number one concern for one out of three South Australians (34 per cent). Privatisation has become an ideological hobbyhorse pursued by both sides of politics at different times. It has often been packaged up and sold to the public as something that is actually going to deliver improved services to the community.

Could anybody actually say that the privatisation of ETSA was a success? Could anybody actually say that the privatisation of our public transport system has been a success? The results speak for themselves. The sale of ETSA did not see a reduction in our electricity costs; instead, it was a monumental failure that has delivered us higher prices. Privatisation of our public transport network certainly did not result in improved services; instead, it resulted in cuts and a slash and burn approach to some of our most vulnerable communities.

I had a look, in preparing for today, into some of the examples of privatisation that have unfolded over the 30-year history of this experiment in South Australia. I must say that I was stunned by the length of the list and the number of important utilities and public services that have been sold off at great expense to the South Australian taxpayer in terms of the quality of the services they receive.

In 1992, we saw the sale of the SA Gas Company; 1993, SA Financial Trust; 1994, State Bank of South Australia; 1994, Austrust Trustees; 1994, Enterprise Investments (there was a real fire sale happening in 1994); 1994, Island Seaway, ferry to Kangaroo Island; 1995, Pipelines Authority of SA; 1995, Sign Services; 1995, State Government Insurance Commission (keep on selling it all off—it has all got to go); 1995, State Bank of SA; 1995, State Chemistry Laboratories; 1995, State Clothing Corporation; 1996, Radio FIVEaa; 1996, Samcor Meatworks; 1996, Forwood Products (timber); 1997, Port Bulk Handling Facilities; 1999, ETSA (and we all know what happened there); 1999, Central Linen Service; 2000, Torrens Island Power Station; 2000, ElectraNet; 2001, South Australian Totalisator Agency Board (SA TAB); 2002, SA Ports Corporation; 2012, SA Lotteries (master agent); 2012, Forestry SA; 2016, Motor Accident Commission (that was an investment portfolio); and 2017, Land Services, the lands titles office.

It is a long list and, sadly, we know that it is a list that will be added to in the years ahead, with the privatisation of our train network and the appalling consequences that will flow from that. This inquiry is seeking to look at the implications of these privatisations, the impact that this has on the services made available to the people of South Australia and the impact this has on the workers in those industries.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:22): I rise to indicate support for this motion. We have seen privatisation in this state time and again, particularly with the explicit promise of not doing that. Prior to the 1997 state election, we remember the ironclad guarantees given in relation to the state's electricity assets: 'They will not be privatised'. An election rolls around and they were privatised. As we know, as the Hon. Robert Simms has pointed out, a large portion of South Australians know that the Hon. Rob Lucas' privatisation of ETSA is one of the primary reasons for the problems we see with the electricity system and the prices people pay.

We roll around to the next time the Liberals are elected in this state, with the explicit promise by then Liberal opposition leader, the member for Dunstan, that there is no privatisation agenda. As soon as they get into government they start flogging off everything again. One notable thing that was not mentioned on the Hon. Robert Simms' list was the Remand Centre, which was privatised recently, but the big privatisation, the one people are treating with a similar amount of disgust and disdain as the selling off of ETSA, is the privatisation of the rail system, of the trains and trams in this state.

I have been at railway stations over the last 12 months on many mornings and many afternoons talking to commuters, and almost everyone—95 per cent of people I have talked to at train stations—knows the facts, knows that, once you sell the railway system to a private operator, fares will increase and services will reduce. That has been the experience overseas and it just stands to reason.

If it is being run for, as the government claims, the same sort of money—although, I think as has been borne out in further inquiries, it is actually going to cost more for the private sector to run it, even though for some weeks the government could not work out exactly how much it costs to run the rail system. When it is finally shown that there will not be savings, the only way that a private company can make a profit is if they cut services or increase costs. That just stands to reason.

This will be an important committee that will look not just at the past but, I think very importantly, to the future. We have a commitment as a state Labor opposition that, at the next election, if Peter Malinauskas, the member for Croydon in another place, is successful we will reverse the privatisation of the rail system. That is a commitment of the state Labor opposition. It is one that almost to a T commuters who use the rail system want to see happen. I think this will be a useful and important committee to look at not just historic, as outlined, but recent and particularly contemporary privatisations to see why they occurred.

This will help the government out because they are unsure of their own figures in terms of how much it actually costs them to run the rail system. This might find it out once and for all and dispel those myths that this is a good thing for South Australia. The privatisation of rail is certainly not.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:26): I rise to speak to the motion. The government does not support it but acknowledges that the numbers in the chamber will be there to see the committee do its work. I am going to place on the record, and I know our representative will follow through on behalf of the committee, a series of privatisations, commercialisations or outsourcings conducted by former governments that the Hon. Mr Simms I am sure, being as fair as he would wish to be, will make sure the committee explores because he has no great love, I am sure, for the Labor governments of the past as indeed he probably does not have much love for the Liberal government of the present.

It is useful, given the claims that have been made, at least to place on the public record, as I have done a number of times before, the explicit commitment that I gave on behalf of the then Liberal opposition to the Public Service Association in relation to indicating that we would not rule out outsourcing or commercialisation of public sector assets or services. I place on the record a letter that I wrote to Nev Kitchin, who was recently re-elected, and I congratulate him and his team for their comprehensive majority.

On 12 January 2018, just before the 2018 election, I wrote a letter to my good friend Nev Kitchin. It was a series of answers to a series of questions. Question 2 was: 'Will your party commit to not privatising, outsourcing or commercialising any Public Sector assets and services?' My response went as follows:

Contrary to their election promises the Labor government has embarked on a massive programme of privatisation (MAC, LTO, Lotteries Commission, SA Forests, etc) and has paid KPMG $100,000 for a secret report into the privatisation of SA Water. A Liberal Government will not support the privatisation of SA Water.

There are many current examples where public services are being successfully delivered by private or non-government suppliers. We have a responsibility to consider such options where it is clearly in the public interest to do so.

So I made it clear to Nev and his team that the government would not rule out outsourcing or commercialising. The former Labor government had engaged in a whole series of commercialising, outsourcing and also privatising but commercialising and outsourcing of public sector services. We indicated that, if elected, we had a responsibility to consider such options where it was in the public interest to do so, so we would not rule out commercialising or outsourcing public sector services.

We did rule out the privatisation of SA Water and we have adhered to that particular commitment. That was the specific nature of the commitment I gave on 12 January 2018 on behalf of the Liberal Party if elected to government in the lead-up to the campaign. It was a focus of the election campaign because the Labor Party, as they have for the last 20 years, tried to run the ogre that Rob Lucas was going to privatise everything, and they were comprehensively defeated. I am intent—and the Hon. Mr Hunter might be able to help me here—that my very good friend, the current—is it general secretary?

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: State secretary.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The state secretary of the Labor Party, Reggie Martin, had a wonderful life-sized cut-out saying that Rob Lucas would privatise everything that moves, or something. He said that he might sign it for me and give it to me as a memento of battles past and present. At every election, the Labor Party runs this particular ogre and, as I said, at the last election they were comprehensively defeated.

What I will be asking a representative of the committee to do—and if the Hon. Mr Simms is chairing the committee, I am sure he will be even-handed about this—is to list a significant number of privatisations outsourcing some commercialisations by the former Labor government that should be the subject of the same scrutiny as the Labor Party would wish to apply to any recent outsourcings such as the trains and trams that they have referred to.

This is just a quick grab. I will make sure that our representative has a comprehensive collection of outsourcing of privatisations under the former Labor government for this committee to provide a forensic analysis to, if that is what they are going to do. End-user computing, support and maintenance of desktop services, was outsourced on 25 November 2017. Which functions remain in the public sector? None relating to desktop support and maintenance of end-user computing—all completely outsourced by the former Labor government in 2017.

In the old department of DPTI, which is now DIT, the government had a facilities management contract. In 2015, a new contract was entered into by the former Labor government. All facilities, management services, planned and unplanned maintenance, minor works, small construction works and property services, contract management were outsourced at a cost of, as I understand it, about $30 million per annum—all outsourced in that particular department. Building projects done—these were architects, engineers, cost managers and surveys, contract management functions—were all outsourced in 2013 by the former Labor government.

In April 2014, hotel services within the health department hospitals, non-clinical support services, helpdesk, cleaning, catering, ground maintenance were all outsourced by the former Labor government. In 2017, there was the Southern Hemisphere's biggest outsourced privatisation of a hospital, the NRAH. The Spotless contract, as part of that, outsourced the food services and ward attendants in 2017. Of course, the NRAH is still owned by a private sector consortium, so if one wants to look at a privatisation in the Labor use of the phrase, they privatised the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and not only that but also the hotel services in a massive contract with Spotless at that particular time.

Back in 2012-13, all of the security services within health were outsourced to MSS Security. On-demand guarding services, mobile patrols and alarm response services were all outsourced to a private sector provider by the former Labor government. In November 2016, medical imaging at Modbury radiology services at the Modbury Hospital were undertaken by Benson Radiology. The continuation and expansion of services was fully outsourced to Benson medical imaging at the Modbury Hospital.

Yet, we had the railing and gnashing of teeth by the Labor Party when the government said that if savings were not made in medical imaging and pathology, the government would leave open the option of continuing what the former Labor government did in a number of hospital areas, of the outsourcing of radiology or medical imaging services.

In December 2016, the Lyell McEwin radiology services were undertaken by DXRS Pty Ltd, also known as Radiology SA. That was the management, administrative, billing and technical services. All of those services in December 2016 were outsourced to a private sector provider. In 2015, in centralised waste management and health, there was one contract for SITA Australia for the provision of general waste recycling and confidential waste services, and a separate contract for Veolia Australia for the provision of medical waste and sharp services. These were all outsourced in 2015.

In 2016, in compounding pharmacy, a pharmaceuticals contract was fully outsourced by the former Labor government. In 2014, the community nurse program was outsourced to a non-government provider. The contract for RDNS renewal was fully outsourced in terms of a community nurse program by the former Labor government. In October 2015, there was a significant expansion of nursing agency work, fully outsourcing nursing provision of nursing agency staff within local health networks. Nurses who were currently employed as SA Health employees were outsourced to nursing agency staff.

In 2015, the South Australian Housing Authority outsourced the management of almost 5,000, it looks like, public housing dwellings. In 2015 and 2017, the public housing tenancy and asset management for approximately 5,000 dwellings were outsourced at that particular time for that number of housing dwellings.

In 2011, the capital delivery in SA Water, share partnership for delivery of capital and services with KBR, was outsourced. Shared partnership, equal roles remaining in both, was a decision taken by the former Labor government within SA Water. In 2009—it finished in 2012—was the infamous South Australian forests or ForestrySA privatisation. This house has discussed that particular privatisation on many occasions. It is still being criticised in the South-East, but that was under the former Labor government.

In 2011-12, there was the privatisation or commercialisation of SA Lotteries. The Lotteries would be licensed to a private sector operator. The management of their operations was transferred to Tatts through the provision of a long-term 40-year licensing agreement. To many people, the much-loved SA Lotteries was privatised by the former Labor government.

In 2009 through to 2016, there was the sale of a portfolio of SA government commercial and industrial properties and housing, including South Australian government employee rental properties. They were all privatised or sold during that particular period. In 2016 through to 2017, there was the land services commercialisation project; that is, the former Labor government announced a range of transactional land services and functions to be commercialised by the state, the LTO privatisation as it has been colloquially referred to by the former Labor government.

The MAC, otherwise known as the third-party insurance market reform project by the former government, started in 2014 and went through for a number of years. The Motor Accident Commission, previously conducted in government, was privatised under the former Labor government to four private sector insurers, which is the system that is operating today.

There was also the privatisation of domiciliary care and disability services reform under the former Labor government in March of 2017, just 12 months prior to the election, so a relatively contemporary decision by that particular government. There was a significant number of decisions that were taken there owing to the transition of the procurement process, market sounding and to facilitate the transfer of domiciliary care to the non-government sector by 30 June 2018. That was a decision from the former Labor government in 2017 and 2018.

That is just a selection, a taster plate of the decisions the former Labor government took. There are a number of other departments and agencies that had not responded by the time of my contribution today, but I will undertake to whoever is going to chair the committee to ensure that all of these decisions that the former Labor government took will be part and parcel of the work that the chair of the committee and all members of the committee will address.

I am sure if there is a Labor member on the committee, as I am sure there will be, they will want to only look at the handful of issues that this government in the last three years has engaged in. The crossbenchers, I am sure, will be fair in relation to this to say, 'Well, if we are going to look at decisions that the Liberal government have taken in three years, it is only fair that we look at all of the decisions you took in your turn in government and we will provide the same forensic analysis of those particular privatisations, commercialisations or outsourcings as you want us to do to the Liberal one.'

I make no criticism of some of the decisions of the former government in relation to outsourcing because, as I said in the letter to Nev Kitchin, the former government had outsourced where it was believed it was in the public interest to do so and it was in a position to be able to say, 'We will save millions of dollars for the taxpayers of South Australia by outsourcing the provision to MSS,' for example, in terms of security, or Spotless in terms of facilities management, or whatever it might be.

The former government took advice and in the end decided that it was cheaper for the taxpayers of the South Australia to actually outsource to the MSS or to Spotless or to a variety of other private sector or non-government providers to provide those particular services. The hypocrisy that I call out here is this holier than thou attitude when the Liberal Party was at least honest enough to the PSA to say, 'No, we are not going to rule out commercialising and outsourcing. If it is in the public interests, we will do so.' I had those arguments and debates with the PSA in the months leading up to the election, and they know that, I did not back off indicating what our position was.

They were quite clear. They had a letter from me, a commitment in writing, which they circulated to all their members prior to the election. They had all of the answers from the political parties and candidates prior to the election saying, 'These are important issues that you want. You need to know what the political parties are saying in relation to these particular issues.' It was not unknown. It was not hidden. It was circulated to all of their members that this is what a Liberal government reserved the right to do if it made the judgement.

In relation to the train outsourcing, for example, that has saved millions of dollars for the taxpayers of South Australia. The outsourcing of the Remand Centre has saved millions of dollars for the taxpayers of South Australia. As I am sure the Labor Party will claim, when they outsourced the Spotless contract or the MSS contract, they too saved millions of dollars for the taxpayers of South Australia.

Indeed, when the member for Croydon, the now Leader of the Opposition, and other ministers recontracted the outsourced provision of the Mount Gambier Prison or bus services or facilities management contracts when they were ministers, and they had the option to take it back into government if they so chose, they decided not to because they got advice which said, 'If you take it back into government it is going to cost you millions of dollars more and you are going to have to find the money.' It would be useful to get advice from former Labor ministers or indeed current Labor members who were ministers, in terms of the nature of the advice they have.

It may well be that we might be able to assist the committee with some of the information that former Labor ministers might have received in relation to why they should recontract the outsourced Mount Gambier Prison contract or recontract the security services contract or the hotel services contract, or why they should outsource medical imaging at the Modbury Hospital and the Lyell McEwin Hospital. The simple answer was, 'Because it will save you, minister, millions of dollars in taxpayers' money, and it's in the best interests that you do so,' and they signed up.

But now, as soon as they are in opposition, they revert to type and claim themselves to be holier than thou and they try to create this ogre, as they do every election, that Rob Lucas is going to privatise everything that moves. Well, good luck with that. You tried that at the last election and you lost comprehensively. We are very happy for you to engage in that particular issue in the lead-up to this coming election, if you so choose, and we will let the people decide in relation to the issue.

For all those reasons and, as I said, I undertake to ensure that the committee is provided with even more examples of privatisations, outsourcings and commercialisations of the former Labor government during its term in government so that the committee can have a comprehensive list of all that the former Labor government did in this particular area.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:46): Mr President, I am not listed to speak on this but I will, if you will indulge me, just to briefly say that SA-Best supports the motion of the Hon. Robert Simms for this inquiry into privatisation of public services in South Australia. I note the words of the Treasurer about hypocrisy—and hypocrisy is certainly no stranger to this chamber, particularly to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. I am sure that if the Liberals had a period of 16 years in government we would have seen a far greater list of privatisations, in fact probably equal to those that he has mentioned in relation to Labor.

As he has pointed out, and I tend to agree, there are occasions when privatisation is beneficial to taxpayers. There are instances of good examples, and of course this is what the committee is going to look at; it is going to look at the benefits as well as the negatives of privatisation. But there have been crucial ones that have really cost taxpayers money, significant amounts of money.

I do not think even the Liberals can escape the doozy of privatisations that was the sale of ETSA. Here we are in 2021 and we are still paying for it. My power bills have not gone down, and we are looking at spending billions of dollars for interconnectors and all this sort of stuff. This can be related back to that decision when the Hon. Rob Lucas was in government, and former Premier John Olsen. They stand condemned for what they did in relation to our energy supplies and what ETSA stood for.

The Hon. Robert Simms has gone through a whole list of some of those privatisations that have happened over the years, and some certainly stick in my mind. Apart from ETSA, of course, there was SAGASCO, and here we are still with very high gas prices in Australia. The sale of Lotteries by the Labor government was an interesting one. Lotteries was a really good earner for hospitals in South Australia. That is where some of the revenues that came into government went to, into helping fund our hospitals. Well, all that has gone.

The lands titles one, for instance, by the previous Labor government was incomprehensible. When you look at what was happening with lands titles, in fact it was actually generating income from what it was doing. It was overseeing the day-to-day transactions and the titles that go on. This is the state that created the Torrens title. It was going on quite well as a revenue earner for the state, but the previous government decided to get rid of it.

Let us not forget what this government planned to do just over a year ago with Pathology SA. With COVID we have seen the benefits of having Pathology SA in South Australia. Had it not been for COVID, they probably would have flogged it off as well. COVID has saved Pathology SA. We have just seen the fantastic work they have done in helping the state combat COVID-19.

The Treasurer also mentioned ForestrySA, again another blunder by the previous government that has dearly cost taxpayers a significant amount of money. We are continuing to see the effects of that today. I am on the select committee looking into forestry (timber) on the Limestone Coast. We recently made a trip to Kangaroo Island, where we saw the aftermath of the bushfires and the fact that there are millions of tonnes of timber that need to be shipped off that island, and still they have not got a decision from this government in relation to a wharf at Smith Bay to get that timber off the island and be able to feed the demand we are currently seeing around Australia for timber.

I was only informed yesterday that the Morgan Sawmill in Jamestown may be forced to close at the end of June, with the loss of 75 jobs and $10 million in revenue to the local economy of Jamestown and surrounding regions, because the government has decided not to award a tender to Morgan for timber and instead has apparently awarded it to another company that has significant business interests with China.

Morgan is unable to access timber—they are not able to access South Australian grown timber—because ForestrySA has decided that they would prefer to do business with another company that will actually ship the sawlog to China. Here we are, with sawmills in the Mid North and the South-East that are crying out for sawlog to meet the demand for construction in Australia, and they cannot because of contracts that have been entered into and the sawlog being shipped off to China.

I was shown some photographs the other day, which were quite disturbing, of the amount of sawlog on an interstate wharf that is destined for overseas countries, and one in particular. That sawlog came from our own forests. It is shameful that we lost that valuable resource that would have generated income for South Australia.

Railways is another one. I think I have often spoken about railways. People think I have a fixation with things railway, but I have not. I see the value of railway infrastructure and having efficient railways for our freight around the country. South Australia is the only state that has virtually abandoned its regional rail network, and it is in a shocking case of disrepair. Again, it was sold off and no effort has been made to try to revive rail in our regional areas, which is certainly badly needed and would provide job opportunities and enable the efficient shipment of freight—it is gone.

The Labor government sold SAMCOR. We know where it is. If you travel down Port Wakefield Road and go to Gepps Cross, you see the vast tract of land that is there and you can see what is there now. There are valuable commercial properties and developments and they are continuing to go on. If my memory serves me correctly, I reckon they sold that vast tract of land for something like $3½ million or $4 million. What do you reckon that is worth today, Mr President? A significant amount of money.

As I said, when we talk about privatisation, some can be beneficial to taxpayers, but most of the time it leads to increases in bills. That is what usually happens. When you privatise, companies are going to go in there to make a buck and of course the bills are going to increase with that. Whether it is Labor or Liberal, privatisation has and will continue to be some form of contagion.

I think the aim of this inquiry is to have a look at what has happened in the past and how to avoid situations like the sale of ETSA and others that have cost the taxpayers of South Australia quite dearly. This is what we are going to learn from having this inquiry: how to avoid those blunders, mistakes and poor judgements that have been made.

Many times, it is members of parliament or ministers who tend to cop the blame for making these decisions, but I will also heap blame on the bureaucrats who are advising them who seem to think it is a great idea. Usually, these bureaucrats in their ivory castles have no real connection with the real world or real people out there. When institutions or government-run businesses are privatised and end up hitting people in the hip pocket, the bureaucrats seem to be immune to the damage that they have caused them.

The other issue regarding the motion by the honourable member is the effect that it will have on income and wealth inequality. Again, I think we can point particularly to the issue of land sales and public sector housing that has been sold off by the previous government, which has resulted in very long waiting lists for people to get into public housing.

I can remember stories about people having to wait up to 30 years in some instances to get into public housing. In the meantime, the government of the day was flogging them off, not spending money on maintenance and making contracts with private operators regarding maintenance that were totally ineffectual, and we still have that problem today. It is quite shameful that we cannot meet the need for social housing. Social inclusion is very important.

These are some of the issues that the honourable member will be looking at, as well as ways that we can avoid this in the future and what lessons we can learn from the past. In saying that, I did not intend to speak as long as I did, but we endorse the motion by the Hon. Robert Simms.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:59): I thank the Labor Party and SA-Best for their support for this inquiry. I am disappointed to hear from the Hon. Mr Lucas that the Liberal Party will not be supporting the inquiry, because it sounds like he has a lot to contribute. Indeed, he has been a thought leader in the area of privatisation. It was the Hon. Mr Lucas who started the project and the Labor Party that continued it. Now is an opportunity for us to put a stop to it.

What I would like to do with this inquiry is look at what has gone wrong with the privatisation of our public assets, what that has meant for growing inequality in our state, what that has meant for reduced public services and what that has meant for the most vulnerable people in our community, because it has been disastrous. There is a very long list—I do not propose to go through it again—in terms of the examples of privatisation in SA. This inquiry will provide us with an opportunity to get the facts, to put them on the table and to hear from the relevant players. I commend the motion to the council.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:01): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. David Ridgway MLC, the Hon. John Darley MLC, the Hon. Frank Pangallo MLC, the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos MLC and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:01): I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to adjourn from place to place and that it report on 25 August 2021.

Motion carried.