HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND RESOURCES SA

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. M. Bressington:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report upon the conduct of PIRSA in relation to issues that are affecting the livelihoods of those involved in the fishing industry and, in particular—

(a) (i) the licence fee structure;

(ii) cost recovery process; and

(iii) access to right of appeal process.

(b) The scientific data provided to PIRSA to determine allocations to ensure resource sustainability for the 2008-2009 Pipi Quota for the lower lakes and Coorong cockle harvesters;

(c) The validity and accuracy of catch and effort data and the impact that has on scientific stock assessment to guarantee resource allocation; and

(d) The rationale of determining allocation for season quota 2008-2009 and the impact that has had on individual licence holders and multiple licence holders.

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 reported 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.

To which the Hon. J.A. Darley has moved to leave out all words after '1. That' and to insert the words:

'the Legislative Review Committee inquire into and report upon the conduct of PIRSA in relation to issues that are affecting the livelihoods of those involved in the fishing of mud cockles in the marine scalefish fishery and the Lakes and Coorong pipi fishery and, in particular—

(a) (i) the licence fee structure;

(ii) cost recovery process for fishers; and

(iii) access to right of appeal process.

(b) The scientific data provided to PIRSA to determine allocations to ensure resource sustainability for the 2008-2009 quotas for mud cockles in the marine scalefish fishery and the Lakes and Coorong pipi fishery;

(c) The validity and accuracy of catch and effort data and the impact that has on scientific stock assessment to guarantee resource allocation;

(d) The rationale of determining allocation for season quota 2008-09 and the impact that has had on individual licence holders and multiple licence holders; and

(e) Any other relevant matter.'

(Continued from 26 November 2008. Page 953.)

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (12:14): I sought leave last night to continue my remarks because of some confusion on my part as to the Liberal Party's stance on the two amendments. As a result of that, the Liberal Party will support an amalgam of the two amendments. I will move a further amendment that will support the narrowing of the inquiry, using the words of Mr Darley, so that it inquires purely into the pipi industries as they relate to the Lakes and the Coorong and the mud cockles on Eyre Peninsula.

We will be supporting a select committee, albeit, I hope, a brief select committee, to conduct that inquiry, as opposed to the Legislative Review Committee conducting the inquiry. That is probably a somewhat unusual decision, but it is felt that a select committee will give a broader cross-section the ability to present their argument and to look broadly across the issues involved, as opposed to looking at the legislative framework only. I have an amendment standing in my name, which has just been circulated. I move:

Paragraph 1—Leave out all words after 'That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report upon the conduct by PIRSA' and insert:

In relation to issues that affecting the livelihoods of those involved in the fishing of mud cockles in the Marine Scalefish Fisher and the Lakes and Coorong Pipi Fishery and, in particular—

(a) (i) the licence fee structure;

(ii) cost recovery process for fishers;

(iii) access to right of appeal process.

(b) The scientific data provided to PIRSA to determine allocations to ensure resource sustainability for the 2008-09 quotas for mud cockles in the Marine Scalefish Fishery and the Lakes and Coorong Pipi Fishery;

(c) The validity and accuracy of catch and effort data and the impact that has on scientific stock assessment to guarantee resource allocation;

(d) The rationale of determining allocation for season quota 2008-09 and the impact that that has had on individual licence holders and multiple licence holders; and

(e) Any other relevant matter.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Gambling, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:16): In speaking to this motion, I am pleased to see the amendment moved by the Hon. John Darley last night to send this matter to the Legislative Review Committee, and I indicate that the government will support that amendment. The government believes that the place for the matter to be investigated, reviewed and reported on is the Legislative Review Committee, a standing committee of this parliament; because it involves a regulation. It is for these types of matters that standing committees of our parliament have been set up.

I understand that the budget for select committees set up by this chamber has really got to the extent where it is far in excess of what one would expect. I understand that, for the Select Committee on Families SA, we are looking at $60,000—

An honourable member: For one committee?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: For one committee—and for Peak Oil, $20,000. This is a great cost to the taxpayers of South Australia, and it is an enormous indulgence on the part of members opposite. We have currently seven select committees of this chamber, and during the year there have been up to 11. Members opposite and the Independents in this chamber are treating select committees like standing committees.

As I have said, we have a standing committee to look at regulations, and that is where this particular issued should be referred. Also, appointing staff for these select committees takes them away from the roles they should be performing for this chamber and for this parliament. As I have said, we on this side of the chamber really are disappointed that those opposite choose to indulge themselves.

Before I continue, I should really respond to some of the comments and information placed on the record by the Hon. Ann Bressington, because I really do think it is important to place the facts on the record. The minister in the other place recently made a ministerial statement to the house in relation to the saga of Goolwa pipis. The minister commenced by informing the house of his disappointment at the manner in which this serious and complex issue has been dealt with by the opposition in this chamber and the opposition and crossbenches in the other place (meaning this chamber here). He went on to say:

Political mischief combined with disingenuous lobbying by a small group of commercial fishers who have never caught a pipi or who have a relatively small catch history have caused needless uncertainty and damage.

I wish to also inform the council of my disappointment in relation to the treatment of this issue in this chamber. Every member in this place is aware of the exhaustive consultative process the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, his department (Primary Industries and Resources SA), PIRSA Fisheries, and all stakeholders have engaged in. This has been reported to the council previously. To suggest that PIRSA Fisheries, its officers or the minister's office have conducted themselves in any way other than a professional, considered, informed and genuine manner is offensive.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Honourable members will come to order. The minister has the floor.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Thank you, Mr President. I am advised that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries wrote to the Hon. Ann Bressington on 21 November 2008 to advise her that her understanding of this issue was incomplete and that various individuals had provided her with selective information to further their own cause. Consequently, having blindly accepted this information, the minister believes that the honourable member has misled parliament and urges her to correct the Hansard record at her earliest convenience.

I draw the council's attention to the statements made by the Hon. Ann Bressington on 12 November 2008 and I will illustrate their deficiency as advised in the correspondence aforementioned paragraph by paragraph. In relation to paragraph 1, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

I am, again, absolutely baffled at how a person can go to the public and give inaccurate information. I am not talking about what he can do as the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries: I am talking about the fact that he has stated that there were no alternatives put forward to him, when there were. The alternatives that were put forward to him would have ensured that the small-time cockle harvesters—and when I say 'small-time' make no mistake: their livelihoods still depend on this—would still be able to have a quota allocated to them that would have seen them able to sustain their small business. The 60:40 quota put to the Hon. Rory McEwen showed that the big-time cockle harvesters (who would have received 60 per cent of the allocation of the quota) would still be making a bucket load of money.

There have been no alternative allocation formulae put to the minister following the disallowance of pipi quota regulations. The 60:40 option was put forward to the independent Allocation Advisory Panel (AAP) for their consideration, and it was not recommended by the panel for a number of reasons, but principally because it recommended that 40 per cent of the quota be allocated on access and 60 per cent on catch history, but that the catch history allocation was to be split equally amongst all parties which is effectively not using catch history as a proxy for past effort and investment at all.

This was considered to be unreasonable and inequitable as it would result in a significant redistribution of wealth. The AAP reported to the minister in July 2007 in the lead-up to the decision by cabinet to establish a quota system through regulations. The 68:32 allocation formula proposed in the AAP's report was subsequently agreed when the minister met with licenceholders and parliamentary members at Parliament House in October 2007. Since the regulations have been disallowed, no viable alternative options have been proposed by the Hon. Ann Bressington. In relation to paragraph 3, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

As a matter of fact, the people who are now literally pushed out of this industry were the ones who established the rotational sustainable harvesting of pipis. It was an accredited process. They were the ones who went out and got information on how to bring that about. They were the ones who went out and established best practice on this, and they are the ones who, I think, for about seven years have been practising that. It equates to about 70 per cent of the industry. But, they are the ones whose quotas have been reduced to the point where it is no longer viable for them to stay in business.

I am advised that no-one has been pushed out of this industry. Every person who has a cockle rake endorsed on their licence was allocated quota under the formula in the regulations. This includes some people who never took a single pipi but who nonetheless had their access right recognised. In addition, anyone with catch history in the period July 2003 to December 2006 was allocated a proportion of the remaining quota to recognise their investment in pipi fishing and economic reliance on that species.

Under this formula, licenceholders who have targeted pipis have a reduced share of the fishery compared to the past, in favour of those who have never taken any pipis but nonetheless have an access right—a cockle rake endorsed. Therefore, to ease the impact of the shift in shares, the formula in the regulations was phased in over two years. Under this two-year phase-in, some licenceholders with no catch history did not receive any quota in year 1.

In year 2, those licenceholders then received quota and the fishers who targeted pipis were to receive less. Year 1 of the formula was applied for the 2007-08 pipi season. At the end of that season, the regulations were disallowed. No solution has been found and, in October 2008, licence conditions were imposed to carry on the arrangements from the previous year. These arrangements have been established for one year to provide time for a long-term solution to be found.

It is important to note that in the first year of quota, the total allowable commercial catch was set at 1,150 tonnes. In that first year, only 610 tonnes was caught. There are serious sustainability concerns for the fishery, and the total catch limit for 2008-09 has been set at 600 tonnes. Therefore, everyone in the fishery now has a share of 600 tonnes rather than 1,150 tonnes. There is not a formal or recognised rotation harvesting of pipis. It serves the interests of some in the industry to suggest that there is.

There have been dedicated pipi fishers in this industry for many years who only fish pipis and do not fish for the other major species in the fishery, that is, mulloway, mullet, golden perch and carp. This is supported by fishers' catch and effort returns. There are many Lakes and Coorong net fishers who have access to pipis but who only take finfish species, predominantly mulloway, mullet, golden perch and carp. These fishers do rotate their fishing effort among different components of the net fishery according to the availability of fish and the market conditions.

Catch records demonstrate that these fishers have not targeted pipis as part of their rotational harvesting strategy except on rare occasions. Rather, their catch records indicate that they only targeted finfish and that the rotational argument for pipis is essentially a myth. The dedicated pipi fishers who have historically only targeted pipis have built up an economic reliance over a long period of time based on targeted fishing for pipis. The dedicated net fishers have historically targeted finfish using nets and have similarly built up an economic reliance on the range of finfish species that are harvested using nets.

If quota management arrangements were introduced for the main finfish species, a longstanding economic reliance by the net fishers on these species would be given the same recognition as that of the dedicated pipi fishers through the pipi quota allocation process. In relation to paragraph 4, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

Rather than the minister looking at a slight shift to a 60:40 quota, instead of 68 per cent to the big guys and 32 per cent to the little guys, once those regulations were disallowed, he whacked them all over the head with his big ministerial stick and suspended licences, and suspended these people from even going onto the beach this year.

I place on record that the minister has not suspended any licences. All the Lakes and Coorong fishing licences are valid and active. The minister has not suspended any person from going onto the beach this year. Rather, he has continued, in effect, the arrangements implemented under the regulations in the 2007-08 season for the 2008-09 season while we continue to work towards a solution.

Two area closures have been implemented. The first restricts commercial licence holders to fishing on the Coorong beach. The second restricts recreational fishers on the Goolwa beach. This reflects the primary fishing areas of the two sectors. The closures serve to physically separate the two sectors and ensure that additional recreational pressure is not exerted on the primary commercial grounds. The price of four pipis as bait has increased, and there is great incentive for recreational fishers to travel to the area to take their own pipis rather than purchasing them. There are also increased risks of illegal sales.

In relation to paragraphs 4 and 5, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

However, they are still expected to pay the same amount in administration fees, even though they cannot go onto the beach, unlike the guys with 68 per cent of the quota who are currently making $18,000 a week from the quota that they have been given—$18,000 a week.

They are paying the same administration and licence costs as the guys who cannot go onto the beach and rake for cockles, who cannot now trade their licences, and who cannot trade the quotas. Those administration fees—make no mistake—are not small amounts of money. One of them told me that his administration fees will be over $6,000 and are due at the end of January, but he cannot rake his cockles; he cannot go onto the beach. If he does not pay those administration fees, the information I have is that it is within the minister's power to revoke his licence to rake.

The licence fees set for each licence were established on 1 July 2008 by regulation, as they are for all commercial fisheries. These fee regulations are separate to the Lakes and Coorong fishery regulations that contain the fishery management rules. These fees generated a debt to the Crown based on licences and their endorsement as at 1 July 2008. As the disallowed regulations have now changed the fishery, the minister is seeking approval from the Treasurer, under the appropriate Treasurer's Instruction, to not collect parts of the fees. It is not a simple process to change the fee arrangements. Licence holders have been advised that the fee arrangements are being reviewed to not pay any fees until further notice and that they will not be charged late fees.

In relation to paragraph 6, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

There is something very wrong with this system. We have been inundated with emails, letters and phone calls from the West Coast-Coffin Bay mud cocklers. They are also facing exactly the same situation with the regulations that I have been given notice of motion to disallow. The West Coast mud cocklers' situation is a little different, but it is pretty much the same; there are slight differences. Rather than maybe 13 or 14 families being put out of business, as with the Lower Lakes and Coorong cocklers, in terms of the mud cocklers from the West Coast there are something like 150 people who will lose their livelihood.

This is totally misleading and factually untrue. No-one has been put out of business. Under the allocation formula for mud cockles, every person who took any mud cockles between 1997 and 2006 has received some quota. Anyone who did not receive quota did not take any mud cockles, according to their own records.

There are 344 marine scalefish fishery licences and 67 northern zone rock lobster licences with marine scalefish fishery access. Of these 41 licences, 164 (that is, 153 plus 11, obviously) have cockle rakes endorsed on them. Less than a third of this number of licence holders took mud cockles in the past 10 years. All licences have access to over 50 other species, including valuable species such as King George whiting, snapper, garfish and calamari. If licences were not used to take mud cockles, they were used to target other species or not used at all. It is therefore untrue to suggest that the allocation of mud cockle quota has put 150 people out of business.

Likewise, pipi licence holders (Coorong cocklers) have not been put out of business. Everyone who has taken pipis has received quota. In addition, licence holders who have never taken a pipi received quota under the disallowed formula. The allocation of quota under the regulations created a transferable property right that has value and has not put anyone out of business.

Members should also note that the disallowed regulations contain provisions increasing the number of agents allowed to work in the pipi fishing operation from two to four. This has been removed, and therefore the allowable number reverts to two. This has created significant distress for dedicated pipi licence holders who are no longer able to offer employees work and who are having to lay off workers. In relation to paragraph 7, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

But, through the actions of this one minister, we are now condemning probably another 200 people to the unemployment line.

This throw-away comment is unsubstantiated and completely inaccurate. In paragraph 8, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

For the Lower Lakes and Coorong cockle harvesters, there are, I think, three licence holders who now have 100 per cent of the quota, while the other small guys are literally up against the wall.

Again, this is completely incorrect. Under year 1 of the formula and the regulations, 20 licences received quota. These arrangements have been continued in effect for the 2008-09 season to provide time for a solution to be found to the situation. Information about licences and entitlements is available on the public register established under the Fisheries Management Act 2007. In paragraph 8, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

The Hon. Rory McEwen tried to make out to his own party, the Liberal Party, to everybody else, and to me, that this whole kerfuffle about the cockle quota was all about one man: Mr Steve Alexander.

The Hon. Rory McEwen is not a member of any political party: he is the Independent member for Mount Gambier. Any references to Mr Steve Alexander were raised as a consequence of other members in the chamber specifically citing his circumstances. In relation to paragraph 9, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

Mr Steve Alexander became the target of all this. He was the cause. I was told in a briefing that he was the only one who was dissatisfied. Not so! Steve Alexander was the one who was going to be hurt the most by this, but he was prepared to compromise. He was actually the one who previously, I think, had recommended that a quota system was necessary to sustain the resource. He had no opposition to that at all, but his quota was cut down to 1 per cent.

Under the formula and the regulations, Steve Alexander received quota entitlements in excess of the amount of pipi he had ever taken. Part of the quota that he received was allocated in recognition of exceptional circumstances, which were assessed by an Exceptional Circumstances Panel through a transparent and agreed process involving Garry Hera-Singh, Rod Ayres, the member for Hammond and the member for Finniss. The member for MacKillop was an apology and did not attend. Mr Alexander's quota is not less than 1 per cent of the fishery: it is 2.09 per cent. In 2007-08, Mr Alexander was allocated 20.88 units (or 24 tonnes) of pipi quota. This was not only more than double his eligible catch history, but it also exceeded the amount of pipis he had ever taken when there were no restrictions on catch. In relation to paragraph 10, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

It is all supposed to be based on previous catch history. He claims that his previous catch history was not recorded properly and not estimated properly, and therefore his allocated quota is inaccurate.

Under the regulations, catch history was calculated using catch and effort returns submitted by licence holders. These returns are a statutory requirement. It is a serious offence under the legislation to provide false and misleading information. Mr Alexander's catch history was calculated using the figures he submitted to SARDI Aquatic Sciences. In relation to paragraph 11, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

The minister claims that a huge amount of consultation went into developing this pipi quota system and allocated quotas, but I hear from one side they were completely railroaded into the meetings chaired by the Hon. Rory McEwen and that, when they got up to speak, they were told to sit down.

The consultation developing the quota management system was long and involved, and this fact is on the public record. All parties had numerous opportunities to work with PIRSA Fisheries in developing the system and in putting their particular views and allocation mechanism to the Independent Allocation Advisory Panel for its consideration. The minister and acting minister also met with licence holders, as did the Director of Fisheries. The minister held a three-hour meeting in Parliament House with all licence holders and parliamentary members to get some firm resolutions on the allocation system.

All parties compromised at this meeting and everyone agreed to the quota management arrangements, including the 68:32 allocation formula. In paragraph 13, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

It is his job to find a medium ground where not everybody will be absolutely happy but where at least half or 70 per cent of the industry is not going to be bankrupted. That is poor government policy and poor government practice. That is not a government that is serving the best interests of all their constituents, because there is no need for 70 per cent of this industry to be sent bankrupt. There is a solution.

Quota systems are inevitably introduced at times when there are sustainability concerns for a fishery and there is a need to reduce catch.

It is the minister's responsibility to find solutions and that is why his department engaged in a long process to develop these solutions, and why independent advice from an expertise-based panel made of up of a retired district court judge, an economist and an independent finishing member was sought. It is absolutely untrue that 70 per cent of the industry will be sent bankrupt as a result of the disallowed regulations. There is no evidence to support this assertion. In relation to paragraph 15, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

Then the minister stated on radio that I had suggested that we have an open Olympic scale system where it is a free-for-all on the beaches. At no time have I ever recommended in this place or outside that open slather be allowed. He still could have set the total allowable catch at 600 tonnes and let them go out there and whoever gets their quota first, well and good. He has misled listeners on the radio, and my staff have given me feedback that people have come up to them in social situations and said, 'Why would Ann Bressington want open slather on the beaches for pipi quotas? What is she thinking?' My staff have had to explain that that is not what I proposed at all. So, if the minister cannot win fairly and squarely, if he cannot get his own way, he is not above spreading a few furphies in order to prove his argument.

Setting a total allowable commercial catch limit and then allowing unrestricted harvesting up to that limit is precisely what an olympic quota system is.

An olympic quota system requires higher compliance costs and it induces a 'race for the fish', which leaves fishers unable to plan their harvest over the season to maximise market access and price. It is never a preferable arrangement for a fishery. People are right to question why would you suggest it. In relation to paragraph 16, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

I know that there is a report out there relating to this quota and how it came about. However, if we simply rely on these reports written by bureaucrats, government department CEOs and whoever else and never truly listen to the constituents who are affected by this, tell me how we will know it is working for them, and tell me how we will know that we are getting it right?

The report to which the honourable member presumably refers is the report of the independent allocation advisory panel. This panel, again as I have already placed on record, comprised a retired district court judge, an economist from the University of Adelaide and an independent fishing industry member, who was the former president of the Australian Seafood Industry Council.

The independent allocation advisory panel conducted their own extensive consultation process before developing the report. The report was not compiled by bureaucrats. This report has been tabled in parliament and referred to in several statements in parliament. To suggest that the decisions have been based on reports by bureaucrats and not involving constituents is misleading.

The minister has outlined extensively the many opportunities for everyone in the fishery to have their say, which they did. Consultation means listening to everyone, but it does not mean agreeing to everything that everyone wants. In relation to paragraph 19, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated:

I have also been told that there is some pretty hefty evidence of the fact that there is an agenda involving a level of self-serving in the undertone of some of these decisions that have been made (not necessarily by the minister, I might add).

It is difficult to understand your comment here, but if it is to suggest that there has been some impropriety on behalf of the department or the minister in relation to the quota, the assertion is wrong and unsubstantiated.

The Hon. A. Bressington: I said 'not the minister'.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am saying either the minister or the department. It is wrong and unsubstantiated. For example, the recommendation to implement a quota system came from an industry workshop facilitated by an independent and well respected fishing industry consultant from another state, involving all licence holders who unanimously supported the proposal at the workshop.

Secondly, the minister was provided with recommendations on quota allocation from an independent allocation advisory panel, as referred to many times in statements to parliament. The minister then consulted with all licence holders and made a number of unanimous agreements with them at a meeting at Parliament House. He established an exceptional circumstances panel, which had two Liberal parliamentarians and two licence holders as members.

After considering the panel's advice and taking exceptional circumstances discussions into account, the final decisions on allocation were made. No-one has had an opportunity to impose any personal agendas on this process. This protracted process has created an enormous amount of anxiety for fishers and their families. Despite the minister endeavouring to approach this difficult issue with bipartisanship and inclusive consultation, some have chosen to play politics with it.

As I said when I commenced this contribution, it is, I think, a dreadful indictment to take this course of action when we have a standing committee, a Legislative Review Committee, whose job it is to actually review regulations and seek information and reports and then come to a conclusion of which this parliament is advised. Instead, as we have said, we have another select committee being set up with funding and taking the officers of this chamber to perform extra duties; if nothing else, simply for political grandstanding. It is political grandstanding, and I think it is a shame that this is regularly happening in this chamber. As I have said, I cannot possibly support this motion, because we do have a standing committee to which matters such as this are referred. It is set up for just that reason and, as a standing committee, it has membership of a cross-section of members of parliament from both houses.

Clearly, the government supports the amendment of the Hon. John Darley, and I urge all members of this chamber to rethink this matter if they were not going to support that particular amendment. The Legislative Review Committee is just the place for this matter to be resolved, and I know that many anxious people in the industry are waiting for members in this chamber to act in a responsible manner.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (12:47): I thank honourable members for their input into this debate. I have an eight-page response to the comments that the Hon. Carmel Zollo has just made about my contribution. I understand that there are two or three different points of view on this matter, and that is probably why I called for the select committee inquiry. What the minister is saying about people being satisfied with the outcome of the quota system, and about people not being put out of business over this, is in direct conflict with the information that we are getting from the constituents. The reason that I wanted it to go to a select committee inquiry was that I wanted to sit on that committee and hear the evidence—both sides of it—including PIRSA's evidence, and be well informed about this matter after the inquiry.

This is the same script that we heard from the government when we wanted the Families SA inquiry established: that it was a political stunt and political grandstanding. It seems that everything that the crossbenchers or opposition do in this place must be a political stunt. It could not possibly be that some of us are interested in hearing the truth from the people themselves who have been adversely affected by the decisions of this government!

I do not sit on the Legislative Review Committee any more, and that is why I have asked for the select committee. The Liberal Party has given its commitment to endorse and support that particular motion, and all the evidence that I have I will make available in the select committee, particularly as it relates to the comments of the Hon. Rory McEwen. I point out that the Hon. Rory McEwen seems to believe that, just because a member in here has disagreed with his point of view, that it is somehow misleading parliament. I have put information onto the record here in good faith, and I believe that saying it was misleading parliament would have to be proven.

I have responded to the letter sent by the Hon. Rory McEwen and have said that I will go through that and, if I find that I have misled parliament, I will be more than happy to correct the record. From the information I have received so far regarding that letter, I do not have the evidence that I have misled parliament. However, if I discover that I have then I would be more than happy to admit that I have been wrong.

The committee divided on the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment:

AYES (8)
Darley, J.A. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P.
Hunter, I.K. Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.
NOES (9)
Bressington, A. (teller) Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Schaefer, C.V. Wade, S.G.
PAIRS (4)
Gago, G.E. Stephens, T.J.
Finnigan, B.V. Ridgway, D.W.

Majority of 1 for the noes.

The Hon. J.A. Darley's amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. Caroline Schaefer's amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hons A. Bressington, J.S.L. Dawkins, I. Hunter, C.V. Schaefer and R.P. Wortley; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on 17 June 2009.


[Sitting suspended from 13:02 to 14:18]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT