Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

on indulgence—I congratulate the member for Parramatta on a very fine speech. While I've done so privately, this is my first opportunity in this place to congratulate you on your promotion to high office. I know that you will do all you can to maintain the dignity of this House, a subject you know I'm very interested in. And I thank the whip and the member for Macquarie for allowing me to deliver a few thoughts this morning from this place. Of course, in COVID some of us don't have a permanent home in this chamber. I did contemplate seeking permission to share my thoughts from the dispatch box, where I spent most of my time here—sadly, the one nearer rather to me than the one closer to the member for New England—but then I thought it might be even more appropriate if I deliver my speech from this place where I delivered my first speech almost 26 years ago.

For the interested of—I was going to say younger members—all members, other than a few of us, sitting immediately to my right was the Hon. David Beddall, former member for Rankin, just to my left was Ralph Willis, the former member for Gellibrand and former Treasurer, and directly in front of me was the Hon. Robert McClelland, still a great mate of mine, a former Attorney-General and now, of course, Deputy Chief Justice in the family court—or whatever it's called now after the most recent reforms. The member for Grayndler was roughly where the member for Lingiari was sitting. That's not a reflection of seniority in any sense. I think it's more a reflection of marginality, and, of course, Anthony Albanese had a very safe seat, and I think he delivered his first speech from that place as well. Sitting where he is now, of course, was Kim Beazley, and where the member for New England is was our newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard. It seems an eternity ago, and I suppose it was.

They were very tough and dark days for the Labor Party. We had been reduced at that election to just 49 seats, and to put that into perspective or context for those who might be watching or listening, the Labor Party currently has 68 seats, and you need 76 seats to form that magic majority in this place, so we were a pretty small team. Heads were down and there was a lot of soul-searching going on around the place. But, interestingly, the class of '96 was a large class, numbering 11. I'll note that one of those 11 was our great mate Greg Wilton, who sadly took his own life, I think in 2000 or 2001. We spent a whole day in this place and into the night eulogising Greg's life and expressing deep regret about the loss. We still miss him.

It was a heavy defeat after the long reign of the Hawke and Keating governments. I just want to put on the record that the Hawke and then the Keating governments didn't lose in 1996 because of any of its substantial reforms; rather, it lasted so long so because of the success of its very important and substantial reforms. The fact is that every government runs out of life at some point, at least as long as the other party doesn't gift them government for another term, which the Labor Party has been capable of doing, I have to say, from time to time, but I won't dwell on that point.

Interestingly, while heads were down, the class of 1996—although I probably shouldn't speak for all of them—were feeling pretty happy, because we were here, and it didn't seem to matter who was in government, at least not to me. I was here, and that was pretty exciting. I think the attitude might have been slightly different if (1) we'd known then just how miserable opposition is, and (2) we'd known how long we would be in opposition, which was, in the end, 11½ years, so it was a long time. I think we were also buoyed by the idea that it was a very small caucus and that a lot of experienced people had left—and that a lot of experienced people were likely to leave in the not-too-distant future because most believed we would be in opposition for a period of time with 49 seats—and therefore our prospects of advancement were pretty good, you might have thought.

Some of us didn't have to wait. For example, Martin Ferguson and Jenny Macklin went straight to the front bench. They came straight into the parliament and straight onto the front bench, which is pretty unusual. The only remaining members of the class of 1996 on this side, the member for Grayndler and I, had to be more patient. We had to wait for our genius and talent to be recognised! But we didn't have to wait all that long. In fact, I was surprised that the member for Grayndler didn't join them and go straight to the front bench. He was the only person in the class of 1996 that I knew. I knew many of the existing members, because of my involvement in the party and my associations with them through my father's time here, but I didn't know any of the 11 new members, other than Anthony Albanese.

I first met the Leader of the Opposition in the Balmain Town Hall in 1985, a long time ago. I wasn't much of a participant in Young Labor. Few people from the regions are, in fact; it's very much a city concentrated affair. But I'd been recruited to the annual conference at the Balmain Town Hall by right-wing apparatchiks hoping to wrestle control of New South Wales Young Labor from the Left. I dutifully agreed to turn up, and I did. I spent the weekend there not doing much at all. Certainly I didn't make a contribution to the debate. I was just there to cast my vote in the ballot. That was the first time I saw this young firebrand they called Albo, who was completely dominating the conference with his fiery contributions to the debate. Alas, the Right didn't win the ballot. I was in the pub that night after the count with my newly-found right-wing city mates. Heads were down. Maybe naively and maybe rudely, I said to my new friends, 'You guys were never a chance in that ballot today in the Balmain Town Hall,' and they surprisingly said, 'Why's that?' I said, 'Because they had that bloke they call Albo.' The rest is history. I knew then that that young guy would make his way to Canberra. I thought he was destined to play a major role here—to be a cabinet minister and possibly one day the Prime Minister. Well, he has been the Deputy Prime Minister. He was a cabinet minister for six years, and I predict that his final destiny will be fulfilled in May when he becomes the Prime Minister, and I wish him all the very best. His deputy, Richard Marles, my good friend, and all of the team will make a very fine government, if the good people of Australia come to that conclusion.

It's been a great honour and privilege, of course, to serve in this place, particularly over such a long time and particularly having followed my father. We all leave, I suspect, with a few regrets. I have a few, and I'll return to a couple of them shortly, but I leave here satisfied, content and happy—very happy. I'm very comfortable with my decision. I think it's just time for me. But I leave happy for a number of reasons. First, I leave on my own terms and at a time of my choosing. I can't imagine—well, I probably can imagine—how difficult it is for those who don't have that opportunity and who leave involuntarily. I leave knowing that I couldn't have worked any harder, either in the electorate or here in Canberra. My wife will attest to that. It's been very disruptive for my family, but I've enjoyed the ride and I'm happy to have, I think, achieved a lot while I've been here.

Obviously, I've served in the cabinet, which I think is everyone's aspiration. I've had the great honour of being the country's defence and agriculture minister, albeit for a very short time. The joke works every time in agricultural forums. I describe my 11 or 12 weeks as agriculture minister as the 'golden era in Australian agriculture'! We achieved a lot in those 11 or 12 weeks. But of course the opportunity to be Minister for Defence was an enormous privilege, and to work with the men and women of this country who serve in our uniform is a great privilege and it brings me fond memories, although the workload was somewhat significant. I'm sure the current Minister for Defence understands that.

I leave true to myself. I have been, in my view, enormously consistent in my policy positions. Obviously, we have to be agile, and we adjust with changing community attitudes, but the things that form the foundation of my policy development, my thinking and my conclusions remain the same as they were 26 years ago. Most importantly, I'm able to leave this place still married to the Australian Labor Party. Some people don't go the distance. Sometimes people outgrow their party or their party outgrows them. Happily, that's not the case for me. I remain dedicated to the Australian Labor Party—this country's greatest political party, in my humble opinion. I still share its ideals and its objectives and its aspirations for the Australian people, and I will continue to work with it all of my life. And my father wouldn't have it any other way, I'm sure.

The foundation of Labor values, from my perspective—we all have our own slightly different interpretations, and that is reasonable—is equality of opportunity. It is to make sure that all Australians, regardless of their background, have an opportunity to fully participate in the economy and to fully reach their natural potential. Having people fully participate in the economy is good for them but it is also good the economy. We are a country of limited human, natural and capital resources and we need to be deploying all of them. We can't have people—in particular, young people—standing idle. It's one of the reasons we are so dependent on foreign labour. We must reduce that dependence by deploying all of our own people.

I sought election to Cessnock Council in 1987, 34 years ago, motivated mainly by our bad roads—and kerbing and guttering, drainage and a few other basic services. I think it was Malcolm Fraser who said he wanted to ensure that people had the right to turn on the lights. My father infamously said—I'm pretty sure it was his first speech in here—that he wanted to fight for the right of people to 'pull the chain'! In those days some of the old mining villages around Cessnock still didn't have sewerage, so those basic needs took me to Cessnock Council. I'm happy to say that the roads are much better now—and I'm taking some of the credit, of course. I hope someone in the electorate is listening!

Many things brought me to Canberra. It was an opportunity to do good things for my local electorate at a higher level, on a bigger stage and across a broader range of policy issues. But, more than anything else, what brought me to Canberra was the issue of intergenerational unemployment—those kids who are effectively born to fail; those kids who have never known either their parents or grandparents to have worked; those kids who have never woken up to an alarm clock or known their parents to do so; those kids who often have only one parent; those same kids who often don't have the parent at home. These kids need a hand up. I was so pleased with the Labor government's Gonski reforms because part of that was giving our public schools in particular, where you typically find these children, the resources and the ability to identify these kids at the earliest age, preferably kindergarten, and intervene to give them the assistance they need to join mainstream students. I think we have made enormous gains there in the 26 years I have been here, but there are still far too many of these kids. I appeal to all members of this place, and of the other place, to think of them and make them a priority. It is not only important to them, it is important to our communities. These things lead to antisocial behaviour and all sorts of problems. But it is important to our economy—and I go back to that participation issue.

I have a few regrets. I'm not going to talk about policy today. I went back to my first speech this week. In fact, I watched it on video. Yes, colleagues, we had video in 1996!

They were filming us. The technology wasn't quite the same. Mike Bowers was in the gallery taking photographs then, I think, possibly. He's nodding. He looks exactly the same. He's not dressed up today either, unfortunately, as he is wont to do on ABC some mornings.

In that first speech, I was surprised, actually. I lamented the decline in the standards of behaviour in this place. I also lamented the decline in the power of the legislature vis-a-vis executive government, and I made an appeal to the new Prime Minister, John Howard; I don't think he was in the chamber or listening, of course. Through the Speaker, I offered to support any initiatives he might take as the new Prime Minister to both improve behaviour in this place and redress that power imbalance between the House and the cabinet room. Alas, nothing happened, and I'm sad to report what you already know: despite Speaker Smith's best efforts, it's grown worse—much worse—in the time I've been here. I would be very surprised if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't agree. Yes, he's nodding his head. He knows this very well, as a former Leader of the House over a long period of time. I find that sad. I think it's really important that we all work together here to maintain the dignity of the House and, just as importantly, the respect in which it's held by the broader Australian community. That is so important.

All of us here have lived all of our lives in a world in which representative democracy is the pre-eminent form of government. The rules based order and all those things that go with that have delivered us such great wealth, peace, stability and security—peace for 77 years, by and large. People are losing trust and confidence in it. We shouldn't take it for granted. There are other models around the world. There's been a fair bit of talk about that in this place of late, usually for the wrong reasons, but I won't dwell on that today. But we shouldn't take it for granted.

It's very clear that people are losing confidence in the system. Protests aren't new. I was here in 1996 when the Trots kicked in the front doors of the place. That's another story. I was right there on the inside watching it. Protests aren't new, but they are on the rise, and so too are protest groups—more particularly in the electorate, but not just my electorate. As I move around the country, I feel more and more people are treating us with contempt and losing faith in us. There are many reasons for that, including the rise and rise of social media and other issues, most of which we can't do anything about. But we can change our behaviour in this place and we can change the way we do things in this place.

We need to remember that, first and foremost, we are elected to come here in this chamber as lawmakers. That's our first job. I can't help but feel—it's not meant to be a criticism; it's just a culture—that most people come into this place and see this chamber as a stepping stone to the blue carpet, forgetting that this place in itself is not just a theatre for the media and not just an opportunity for them to spruik their wares in the name of their aspirations. This is a serious place, and we need to all work together to maintain the dignity of this place and, of course, to respect and maintain its traditions and its norms and, of course, its standing orders. Again, it's not meant to be a criticism, but I think far fewer members of this place would have a very comprehensive understanding of the standing orders than was the case when I first arrived here. I just don't think people have the time to bother. Some of them let the Manager of Opposition Business worry about that while they're busy making their way to the blue carpet. No, they should know the standing orders, because you can't understand this place unless you do, and if we don't respect it we can't expect people outside the place to respect it.

I have a couple of ideas which might not be popular. We shall see. Maybe I could just make them predictions rather than requests. It's hard to change the culture in this place, but we must try. One of the things we can do is reform question time. I know this is perennial. I know that we talk about it all the time. I know that we have had a thousand Procedure Committee reports and recommendations, very few of which have been embraced, although we do have time limits now. The Leader of the Opposition likes to remind me that I once took 15 minutes to answer a dorothy dixer. I'd have to check whether that is true.

Honourable members interj ecting—

I'm being told it is true! You can get a little bit carried away on your feet when you are focused and you have people interjecting on the other side. So I apologise for that, after all these years. But at least we do have time restrictions now. That's been a good reform, although I still don't know why the member for Kennedy gets more time than anyone else. I love the member for Kennedy, but I think he should get less time, quite frankly. We'd all be better for it. I'm pretty confident he won't mind me saying that; he'll just be happy he got a mention, I suspect! I had some wonderful times with the member for Kennedy as Chief Government Whip in that hung parliament. Every conversation was a respectful one but an interesting one.

The thing we have to do is get rid of those stupid dorothy dixers. Is there anything else in this place that drags us down out there in the marketplace more than dorothy dixers? They're just ridiculous. It's not how the founding fathers intended it. Of course it's not. Full marks to the first person who does something about that. I know what I would do. You can't deny private members on the government side the right and opportunity to ask questions of the executive. Of course, you can't. But what I would do is give the opposition the first 10 questions and the government the next 10 questions. I'll bet London to a brick that, by the time you get to the 11th question, all those who sit in the press gallery will be back in their offices. No-one is going to stick around to hear dorothy dixers for an hour or half an hour. I think that, in time, dorothy dixers would change. Because what's the point if no-one's listening? If they change, who knows? We might get lucky. Maybe opposition questions would improve in technical quality as well. That would be a big change in this place. I'd like to see it one day. I won't be here to experience it, but I'd like to see it.

There's a power imbalance. I fear the House of Representatives has become not much more than a rubber stamp for executive government, and I think that is a shame and, again, not as the founding fathers intended it. Why is this so? Axiomatically, the government has the numbers in this place, most of the time. We experienced something different with the 44th parliament, the parliament from 2010, in which the Labor government didn't have the majority. But not only do governments typically hold the numbers; they are using them more ruthlessly within their party structures. I might not be popular saying it, but I think party discipline is strangling our democracy in an era when the world is changing so dramatically. I don't think the founding fathers intended that either. I'm not advocating a return to the Second Parliament in 1903, where we had four governments in one term—Deakin, Reid, Watson and then Deakin again. That doesn't serve the Australian people well. I'm not advocating that at all. And yet I have been asked by well-informed schoolchildren who visit this place if I've ever had to vote in a way I didn't actually agree with. I honestly say, 'Yes, I have.' I've told them that the disadvantage that comes from the rare occasion that happens is far outweighed by the capacity as a block to get good things done for the country. In answering that question, I absolutely believed it, but community attitudes are changing so much and the world is changing so much that I think the major parties will be forced to ask themselves whether this strict discipline is sustainable.

I think the Australian Labor Party has possibly the strictest party discipline in the world. They certainly don't have that discipline in the Palace of Westminster. They don't have it on the hill in Washington. I suspect the Liberal Party of Australia has the second strictest party discipline in the world. Those opposite will probably be quick to say—No, I'm not even going to mention the National Party, Barnaby! Sorry; I can see you urging me to do it, but that is just another story. Those on the other side will say, 'We allow our people to freely exercise their conscience,' and we saw that amongst the five only a week ago. But we all saw how traumatic that was for them, and we all know that they'll be reflecting today on whether that's ruined their prospects for advancement in this place. Certainly it would have knocked it around. Everyone knows that. So, yes, they might be a little less strict over that side, but it's pretty hard.

Why did those five people cross the floor? There might have been various reasons, but I think the foundational reason is that they had no choice because the nature of their electorates is changing and to do otherwise probably would have cost them their seats. So it's cross the floor or say goodbye in three months' time—which reminds us that when the Leader of the Opposition and I arrived here there was a general consensus that around 85 per cent of the Australian electorate voted for either one of the major political parties and the other 15 either swung between the two or parked their primary vote with a minor party. Today, I don't know the number, but I suggest it's more like 70 to 30. Seventy per cent of electors are welded to one of the major political parties or coalition parties, and the others either swing or they're going to all these emerging minor parties, both on the right and the left, including those well-funded excessive progressives. I mischievously call them 'Independent candidates', who are so threatening to moderate electorates on the other side. So, we're all under attack, Labor on both the right and the left, and, of course, that's true of the other side too: One Nation is a threat on their right flank and the rise of these Independent progressives are a threat to them on the left as well.

I think the world has changed so quickly that that is going to be unsustainable, and I think the party that moves first in some way will be rewarded and the party that moves second will be forced to follow. I think that will be a very good thing for our democracy. You can formalise it. We all know here that in the Commons they have this concept of one-, two- and three-line whips. You get to do something different when it's not a particularly serious matter, but on the big serious matters you're expected to fall into line. They spend a lot of time there just getting their people to turn up. A lot of people abstain on matters. Goodness gracious me, the chief whip would be pretty distressed about that, I know! But I just think that, if we don't elect to change it, something's going to change it for us. We really won't have a choice. But enough of that.

I need to deliver a few thank yous. My journey here was almost as long as my time here, and I couldn't possibly thank all the people who have assisted me along the way. So my necessarily abbreviated list starts with my parents, and I'll finish with my wife and our children.

My parents gave me every opportunity in life to fulfil my potential, and I thank them for that with all my love in my heart. My father, as I mentioned, is responsible for developing my interest in politics and steering me towards the Labor Party, and I'm forever grateful for that.

Of course, I thank the Labor Party in all of its manifestations, both nationally and locally. I've been supported by a whole army of branch members over 34 years, and my father before that—I was letterbox-dropping when I was about 12 for local government elections—and I'm eternally grateful to all of them at every level. We all know on this side, and it's true of most on the other side, we don't get elected here because we're popular or good-looking or people like us necessarily. I get elected because there's the word 'Labor' after my name, and few of us would be here without the support of our political parties. I'm enormously indebted to the party and everyone in it I've worked with over many years.

I thank colleagues and friends in the trade union movement. The trade union movement is the ballast of the Labor Party. It formed the Labor Party, and it rightly continues to have a say in the Labor Party. That's a good thing because they are close to the coalface and close to the people who rely so much on us here to do the right thing by them.

I thank all of the local communities and everyone in them I've worked with. I thank people for supporting me. Of course, even the people in safer seats get, at best, six in 10 people supporting them. None of us are loved universally in our electorates, but I've been strongly supported, and I've worked with some amazing people at all sorts of levels, and I thank them here.

I thank all those who have worked with me in my various offices. I calculated that I might have had 50 staff members in the time I've been here. That's a rough guess. I have no idea really, but it's a lot. I can't name them all, but in the electorate, I want to thank those who currently work for me: Liz Deloraine, Tara Naysmith, Renae Stevens, Peta Lindsay, Rachel Bailey, Tallen Howson and Summer Johns. I point out to the people listening outside that some of them are part time; we don't have that many staffers at any one time. We all wish we could. I'm going to take a risk and name a couple of staff who recently left my office: Kim Smith and Darrin Gray.

I also thank portfolio staff. I couldn't possibly name even a fraction of them, but I do want to name people who continue to have an influence on my life who worked for me for a long time and who are still in my life in some way. It's not an exhaustive list, but they include Natasa Sikman, my long-term chief of staff. Most people in this place on both sides know her and know of the great job she did. I also thank Brendan Long, Tracey Winters, Christian Taubenschlag and Tyson Sara—all wonderful staffers.

I thank Anna George. Anna George has had more than a couple of mentions in this place throughout the 'valedictory season'. She's been driving what I call the flight deck in the chief whip's office for a long, long time—back to my time in that hung parliament but even before then. I have no idea how the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is going to function without Anna George. She's totally in control. She's the real boss. Sorry, Chris, but she's the real boss. Yes, he's nodding his head in agreement.

And the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Did you say she knows or he knows?' He knows. I'm glad I clarified that. I've made many friends and, obviously, I can't name all of them. Happily, I've made lots of friends on both sides of the chamber. I will collectively name my colleagues in the New South Wales Right who I dined with last night at the risk of leaving others out. Obviously, that's been an important group for me all of the time I've been here. I see Senator Don Farrell in the gallery with my good friend Senator Raff Ciccone. I'd be a bit surprised if people don't describe Don and me as a bit of an odd couple, because we're very different in many ways, but ideologically I think we're pretty close. We've done some great things here together. Some might disagree; some might think they were bad things. He and I have become great friends. That's true of Raff too, but Don and I have been great friends for a long time and, like many other friendships in the chamber, I know that it will be a lifelong friendship. I'm leaving this place, but I suspect that, even though he comes from that free settlers state and he's a long away, I'll be seeing a bit of Don.

The bad news is I'll probably be in Canberra for a little while after I leave this particular building. For those of you who thought they'd seen the last of me, I'm sorry; you might be seeing a little bit more of me yet, but nowhere near as much as you have in the years that you've been here. On that question, I always say to new members, when they arrive in this place, three things: be ambitious, but don't be in a hurry; always be true to your values, your ideals and your electorate—and electorate is becoming more and more important, because they're all more contestable now; and don't go out of your way to make enemies because you'll pick up plenty along the way without trying. In other words, make friends wherever you can. You might need them one day. I refer to my relationship with Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, as an 80/20 arrangement. We spend 80 per cent of our time butting heads and the other 20 per cent of the time drinking beer and collaborating on issues that are really important to rural and regional Australia.

I'm going to dwell on the other side for a bit to make a point for those people listening outside. I want people to understand that we don't just fight like cats and dogs all day. We have relationships. We do things, for example, in the committee system. It would be nice if a government started to take some notice of the recommendations of House committees. There would be a significant change in the power imbalance between the House and the executive. I was outraged when someone decided—I hope it wasn't us; I don't think it was—that the Prime Minister would appoint the committee chair. Let the House appoint the committee chair. What does it have to do with the executive government or the Prime Minister? Nothing. It's almost a privilege issue, from my perspective. Get out of our way! This is our chamber, and we'll decide who chairs the chamber's committees. It would be nice if a government—any government of any political stripe—started to take a little bit of notice of what those committees do. They spend a lot of time and put in a lot of work examining witnesses and coming to conclusions, usually in a bipartisan fashion, which is an important point. They're working together. Wow! The Australian people don't see too much of that, and I wish they could see more of that.

I want to talk about friendship groups. The member for Barker and I are, for example, co-chairs of the forest products and forest industries group. We work overtime trying to produce a bipartisan view of an industry that's so important to the Australian economy. We talk about supply chains and sovereign capability in the COVID environment. There's nothing more important than the supply of our timber products. I know that the member for Corangamite has been very interested in this issue. Housing and construction prices are going to go through the roof, on timber prices alone. We're becoming increasingly import dependent. There's a shortage around the world. So it's going to be harder to get those timber products. We don't want to have a debate today about native forests. That's another issue. However, native forests operate on a sustainable basis, certified by two international bodies. But I'll park that today. We need to get more plantations in the ground, which requires patient capital.

We support industries in all forms. All we need to do is give them full access to our carbon credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund. There has been a bit of movement, but we need to do much more. Of course, those timber products can replace carbon intensive steel and concrete. They are carbon absorbing. They take carbon out of the atmosphere. The member for Barker and I are probably strange bedfellows, but we've done some good work together. There are many examples of that. The member for Leichhardt and I were chief whips together in that crazy hung parliament. We had a great relationship, which continues. There are many examples. I thank them all for their friendship.

I've had many mentors along the way, too many to name. I still regularly dine with Paul Keating and Laurie Brereton. I thank them for their guidance. I still have some long lunches with Graham Richardson, who, of course, was a great character in this place. Of course, there's my father. Reaching right back, I want to quickly mention a guy that not a lot of people would know in this place. Stan Neilly was the state member for Cessnock. The opposition leader knew Stan. He was the member for Cessnock throughout both my time and my father's time. We lost him in January. He was just shy of 80. I want to reflect on that and say that Stan Neilly was classic old school. He was hardworking, intelligent and fiercely loyal. He was one of those guys who never sought any acknowledgement for anything he did, either in his work or on a voluntary basis. I thank all of those people who make this place tick. Mr Speaker, you're the 10th Speaker I've served under. I don't know how many clerks I've served under. It's a lot. I want to thank the clerks and all the Reps team.

Can I say on that point that, if governments of any persuasion keep putting efficiency dividends on efficiency dividends and apply that to a small department like that of the House of Representatives, it'll have an adverse impact on this place. I've seen the deterioration in the resourcing over my time here. Who can forget when they took the pot plants off us? Obviously that's a frivolous issue but, more seriously, there has been a struggle within the department to deliver what we expect to have in terms of support. They can't keep doing it on less money. You can only squeeze so much juice out of a lemon. You can't keep driving efficiencies.

Of course, there's the Library and Aussies Cafe, which keeps us fuelled every day. Where would we be? Gee, some deals have been hatched at Aussies Cafe, I'm sure, since 1988. The attendants, security, and those who keep the place clean for us—I thank them all. Those sporting nice blazers who tuck us in our Comcars safely at night—or they used to tuck us safely in our Comcars. That's not quite the resource or service it used to be. That's not a complaint, I should say, but it's another example of people struggling to do what they always did for us with limited resources.

I thank all the peak industry bodies I've worked with over many years. There are too many to name, but they include the Minerals Council of Australia, APPEA, AFPA, the National Farmers Federation and a whole gamut of peak groups within the agriculture sector—CropLife, ALEC and the Cattle Council. The list is very, very long. I thank the many companies. Obviously, as frontbenchers we engage a lot with corporations with policy interests, and I've made lifelong friendships there too. I thank all those I've worked with.

Finally, and most importantly, I thank my wife, Dianne, and our three children. Dianne wanted to be here today. I discouraged it; I think it's a long way to come for a speech. But I know that she's watching, and so too are at least some of the kids. Grace, Jack and Caitlin were four, five and six when I came here, and that's pretty tough. Dianne raised those kids effectively on her own, and for all that they've achieved she takes the credit, or most of it. And they have achieved, and we're very proud of them. So, for all I didn't do or did badly or did wrong, I say sorry, and I thank her for her enormous contribution and her forbearance. She did all of that, the whole time, while concurrently pursuing her own professional life, which is pretty extraordinary. I thank her and extend my love to her.

Finally, I just want to say, on a lighter note, that I don't want anyone to applaud yet but very soon there'll be no-one in this place with the surname Fitzgibbon. It's been 38 years. But the good news is that I fully expect—I'm not going to use this piece to promote a candidate—that you will be joined, I think, by a guy by the name of Dan Repacholi, who's the candidate in Hunter. At six foot eight and 130 kilos, he's pretty imposing. He's not particularly overweight, I have to say. I hope to see him soon, and look forward to seeing him, at that dispatch box. I say to the whips, or whoever makes the decisions about who stands next to whom at the table when we're being sworn in, that I'd be very selective when planning that arrangement. But, while Dan Repacholi is a big man, he's a gentle giant. I don't really know what it is about him, but everyone seems to love him, and I know everyone here will love him too. I wish him the best and I wish all of you the best. And from me now it's goodbye. I thank the House.

See this speech in context