Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time SARDI Fish Deaths SARDI Fish Deaths The Hon. B.R. HOOD Legislative Council SARDI Fish Deaths The Hon. B.R. HOOD (15:08): Thank you, Mr President. What a rabble. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ben Hood, just get on with your question. The Hon. B.R. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I seek leave to ask a question of the Minister for Primary Industries about fish deaths at the SARDI aquatic research facility at West Beach. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Are you seeking leave or just asking the question? The Hon. B.R. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I am seeking leave, thank you, to make a brief explanation. Leave granted. The Hon. B.R. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. B.R. HOOD: When asked previously by the Leader of the Opposition earlier as to why recommendations in the report started at No. 4, the minister said the recommendations numbered 1 to 3 were in the executive summary and the opposition was wrong. The points or recommendations 1 to 3 in the executive summary are exactly the same, word for word, as the recommendations listed at 4 to 6 in the recommendation sections. They are not additional recommendations but the same points. My question to the minister is: 1.	Why is she wrong about this? 2. 	What happened to the recommendations 1 to 3? The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN Legislative Council Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development Minister for Forest Industries The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:09): I thank the honourable member for his question, which entirely supports what I said: recommendations 1 to 3 are in the executive summary. If the opposition was closely reading the recommendations, both those in the executive summary and in the body of the report, they would have seen that they were the same and, therefore, it was clearly a formatting error to have 4 to 6 in the second lot. It was exactly what I said, that the numbers, the recommendations, were in the executive summary. Obviously, those opposite like to fill up question time with discussions around typos in reports. If that is what their priorities are it doesn't surprise me because, as we know, they are not really concerned about the issues facing South Australians, they are not really concerned about coming up with constructive ideas to address the issues that are being faced by South Australians. What they are interested in, as evidenced by spending question time talking about typos in a report, is trying to score petty little political points. If the suggestion, if the interpretation, by those opposite is that somehow some recommendations have been removed, I can reiterate again that no, they have not. There is a typo. The first three recommendations in the executive summary are exactly the same as the three recommendations in the body of the report. If they bothered to read the report, they would have seen that.