Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The terms of reference for the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation include and require the committee to inquire into best practices in regional development, considering both Australian and international examples. They also ask us to inquire into decentralisation of Commonwealth entities or functions, such as departments, parts of departments or specific functions within Commonwealth entities. Thirdly, they ask us to look at the sorts of strategies that the Commonwealth can adopt—and presumably other layers government as well—to encourage corporate entities to decentralise their functions to regional Australia. I'd like to make a few initial observations that go to those terms of reference. I'm going to identify what I see as two particular failures that the committee will be looking into.

I should say in relation to the report that its contents are thin and procedural but the subject matter is very, very important. One of the things that we have identified is the confusion of a strategy with a project, and a press release with a plan. And I just want to make it very, very clear, from Labor's perspective, as the shadow minister responsible for regional development and regional services, that we see very clearly that a grant is not a project, that a project is not a strategy and that a strategy is not a plan. Too often, these three things are conflated. Too often, they're all confused for an announcement or a press release, and we need a better approach. We need an approach which builds on the strengths of particular communities and regions, that engages with the thought leaders and participants in commerce and in governance within those regions, and has a long-term strategy not only for particular regions but also for regional development, one that is not tossed and thrown about between and within electoral cycles.

On Labor's side, we see the government is definitely a part of the solution to the challenges we face in regional Australia, but it's not the whole solution. Government does have a role to play, and we have some big levers to pull in human capital development and in ensuring that the infrastructure which will deliver connectivity, particularly broadband infrastructure but also road and rail infrastructure, is invested in. The Commonwealth has an absolutely critical role to play in this regard.

In terms of human capital, we are often debating the role that the Commonwealth plays in investing in school education, in technical and further education, in tertiary education and in the university sector. One level of human capital development that does not get enough attention but is absolutely critical to regional development is investing in leadership and in capacity building in regional communities. We know in those regions that have done this well we get that connection between a project, a strategy and a plan that is organic, that is coming from the regions themselves and is not imposed on them from a state or federal capital. I hope that the inquiry is able to flesh out these ideas and come up with recommendations which are attractive to all sides of politics.

The second issue that I want to focus on in my contribution on this report is the failure of administration. Too often, we have programs which on their face are good, but the administration is bedevilled by incompetence or contradictions at the governmental level. I'd like to cite a few examples. While this inquiry has been underway, we have seen ongoing cuts in Commonwealth Public Service jobs in regional Australia. In Townsville this week alone, the defence department has announced cuts of up to 40 or more jobs in regional areas—40 jobs in Townsville, at the very same time as government representatives from Queensland, New South Wales and other places are ostensibly arguing for the decentralisation of government services. If Townsville was an isolated incident, we would just say, 'Something's gone wrong here that we need to sort out.' But it is not an isolated incident.

In the electorate of Gilmore, I have recently been engaging with Fiona Phillips, Labor's representative at the next election in the seat of Gilmore. She has shed light on propositions to transfer high-quality jobs in the Department of Defence that are currently based in Nowra to Canberra, running in completely the opposite direction to what the government is supposed to be promoting, and that is decentralisation. These are not isolated examples. Australian Public Service figures show the full extent of what some unkind people might describe as hypocrisy in the government's purported campaign for decentralisation.

In the period that I am talking about, in New South Wales alone, since 2014, 760 roles have been cut out of regional New South Wales, a further 180 roles have been cut out of regional Queensland and 320 jobs have been cut out of regional Western Australia. Regional job cuts just keep coming. So the government can have no credibility when it tells Australians that it is on about decentralisation; because it make no sense to move a small number of jobs out of Canberra into the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate in Armidale at the very same time that they are slashing literally hundreds of jobs out of regional Australia. That is what is going on.

Let me give you another example of a program which looks good on the face of it but when you dig down into the administration of that fund you see that it is working against the interests of people in regional Australia. You would have thought that a program which has the title 'National Stronger Regions Fund' and which ostensibly is about addressing disadvantage in regional Australia would have 100 per cent of its focus on providing funds to viable strategies, projects and plans in regional Australia. But we have learnt that, within the $620 million fund, up to 20 per cent of the funds have been siphoned away from viable projects and strategies within regional Australia to some of the wealthiest inner-city seats. Nothing says regional Australia like Kooyong. Nothing says regional Australia like Warringah. Nothing says regional Australia like some of the wealthiest and most metropolitan seats in the country—$3.2 million for the seat of Kooyong; $10 million for the seat of Warringah—when many, many, many fine projects in regional Australia were overlooked. Other disadvantaged regions got nothing. Let's mention the Community Development Fund. This is another program where we have seen rorting—I can't find a more balanced word to use than 'rorting'—of funds.

In the time left I'd like to talk about the Regional Growth Fund. This was announced with great fanfare in the last budget. It's now 270 days since the announcement of the Regional Growth Fund: $272 million to kick-start growth in needy and struggling regions throughout regional Australia. Yet here we are, 270 days after the announcement of that fund and several months since the government promised that the funds would be available to viable projects within regional Australia, and we haven't even got the guidelines.

So we on this side of the House are very, very sceptical indeed when we see the Deputy Prime Minister and the third regional development minister in three months stand up and say, 'We're for regional Australia'. The evidence is the opposite. The evidence shows that there are great announcements, but it all falls down in the administration of this fund. It is either incompetence or distraction or money being siphoned off to fix up Liberal Party mates. This is what is happening with the administration of this fund. I hope that the interim report is able to shine a light on a better way, but the evidence before the House today is not very good. (Time expired)

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regional South Australia, indeed regional Australia, such important places—you know as I do, Mr Deputy Speaker, how important regional Australia is. The member for Whitlam gave us what I would have expected. If I were working in his office I probably could have written his speech notes. He's a member of the committee but we're hearing this mantra a lot in this place about antidecentralisation. The member for Canberra will give a speech shortly very similar to the one she gave in the House recently, bemoaning some sort of disregard that our government might have for the Public Service, democracy and our nation's capital, none of which is true. And I'm happy to tell the member for Canberra, I think I might be a greater champion for Robert Menzies' legacy than perhaps she is.

Let me talk about the member for Whitlam for a moment. He's a member of the committee. The committee at this stage has travelled the breadth of the country. I understand that the member for Whitlam has attended a number of meetings in Canberra. I don't know that the member for Whitlam has been on the road with us doing this work. We need to be on the road because we need to get out to regional communities, This committee has been in Murray Bridge, it's been to Bendigo, it's been to Launceston, and it's been to Orange. It has been out to regional communities.

We need to be on the road because we need to get out to regional communities. This committee has been to Murray Bridge, to Bendigo, to Launceston, to Orange—out to regional communities. When you say the word 'decentralisation' in regional communities you get high fives. When you say the word 'decentralisation' in regional communities, they go: 'It's about time. It's about time some of our tax dollars were allocated to regional communities and regional jobs.'

But the error that those opposite make is thinking that this is just about public sector jobs. That is wrong, so wrong. I listened closely to the member for Canberra's speech that she gave to the House of Representatives not an hour ago, one that she'll repeat shortly. She will talk about public sector jobs. The role of this committee is to look across the spectrum of our economy and to see how we can translocate employment opportunities from large capital centres into vibrant, strong regional communities to make them even more vibrant and stronger. Those opposite want to talk about the public sector jobs, and they want to run a bit of a scare campaign on decentralisation and the anti-Canberra approach of the coalition government. It's rubbish. The person on this committee who probably works the most diligently, the member for Indi, has just joined us in the chamber. She's passionate about this. She's committed to this and she's been driving it exceptionally hard.

We're very privileged as well that the former chair of the committee is now the minister for regional development. Having heard all of those submissions across the country that gave birth to this interim report, he now sits in cabinet. He now holds the regional development portfolio, and he can begin implementing the recommendations that have come to us across the submissions. He can get onto that straightaway.

But those opposite want to talk about this being a bad approach. The reason we're doing this report, the reason we're doing this body of work—correct me if I'm wrong, Member for Indi—is that we are trying to find best practice for how we go about creating an environment where we can create opportunities for both public and private sector jobs in regional communities. Personally, I think that's fantastic. I wonder why a regional office of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority needs to be in Adelaide. I think it should be somewhere on the river.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Albury-Wodonga!

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it's a South Australian chapter, if you like. We're not about to take South Australian jobs into Victoria, but, nice try, Member for Indi.

Ms McGowan interjecting—

Well, this is the point: those opposite think this is a binary choice—that it's Canberra or Armidale, Canberra or Mount Gambier, or Canberra or Waikerie. This is not the case. This is about creating an environment where, yes, we can look at the most effective and efficient way to serve our community via our public sector, but, for me, a much more significant body of work here is about encouraging the private sector to take up opportunities in regional Australia.

It takes me five minutes to travel to my electorate office when I'm in Mount Gambier, and that's when I'm walking. If I took a car it would take longer to get in the car than to drive to my office. These are opportunities that present themselves to the private sector. Rent in my home town of Mount Gambier and throughout my electorate, I'm pretty sure, even in industrial settings, would be significantly cheaper than renting similar facilities in capital cities. You don't deal with the congestion issues and you don't deal with the other limitations that come with large capital centres.

So, when you look at this body of work which is being undertaken by the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, don't quickly jump to the conclusion that it's all about taking jobs from Canberra and putting them somewhere in the regions. It might be about taking a job which is in Adelaide but would be much better placed at Murray Bridge, or it might be about identifying a business which is struggling to meet its overheads in Adelaide—because rent and other expenses are eating into its profit margin—and saying: 'Here's an opportunity in regional Australia. Here's a workforce that is ready, willing and able, and, potentially, more stable.'

I have the privilege of having three export abattoirs in my electorate, and from time to time they're approached to relocate, but on each occasion they say, 'No, we like the nature of the country workforce; we like employing people who live in the country because they're more stable, they're harder working in that capacity,' at least in that type of employment. So I would hate to see the work of this committee denigrated in any way when what it is looking at doing is establishing best practice. It is attempting to learn the lessons of previous attempts. This is not the first time a government has said, 'We want to be about decentralisation'—absolutely not. I think the committee is hearing evidence regularly from individuals who say: 'To do this you can't just make a statement. You need to create the environment. You need the appropriate building blocks in place so this can work sustainably and in the future for a long time.' What we don't want is to rush down the road of making announcements. What we want is a report and a body of work which establishes, as I said, learnt experience from the past leading to best practice.

I want to live in vibrant regional communities. I travel frequently to the cities. I struggle when I'm in the city, whether it's Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney. There are half the number of farmers in regional Australia than there were a generation ago. Every farmer I know and every farmer you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, is chasing scale. For these communities to survive they'll need to transition into services. They'll need to become more of manufacturing and production hubs, and to do that we need to find ways to encourage the uptake of opportunities in the regions, because, if we don't, the 10th, 11th, 12th member for Barker in this place will be bemoaning the closure of communities in their patch—and in your electorate there'll be the same story, and in other electorates.

It's all very well and good to say, 'But, look, we've got thriving capitals.' I live in the state that has the highest differential between the population of its capital city, with a million and change, versus Mount Gambier, my home town, with a population of 25,000. There's no other state in the world that has such a large differential between capital city and second-largest city. That's unhealthy. The South Australian Liberal Party, which has for a very long time controlled regional South Australia in an electoral sense—it's a very conservative part of the state and indeed the country—has suffered at the hands of a city-centric government, and that's why I say it's unhealthy. It's unhealthy because you create this great chasm, this great divide, and I think if anything marks the difference between Australia in 2018 and perhaps the Australia of 1918, or indeed of 1958, it's that the divide between the city and country is growing. And it is incredibly dangerous, because we will create an environment where we have cities that are thriving and doing well and regional centres that aren't. This report is about redressing that as best we can.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security and Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the interim report of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation and I welcome the fact that there were 21 submissions from Canberra alone—the biggest number of submissions from any town or city. The next closest, in fact, was nine submissions from Melbourne and Sydney respectively. The sheer number of submissions from Canberra shows what Canberrans have always known. Despite the heartfelt speech that the member for Barker just made, I too want thriving regional economies. I too want thriving regional communities. Here in Canberra, we are part of the capital region. We are very proud of the fact that we contribute significantly. Canberra contributes significantly in terms of providing education services, providing health services and providing jobs here in our nation's capital for the capital region. We feel very proud of the contribution we make to the community around us—to Queanbeyan, to Murrumbateman, to Hall, to Yass, going out to Leeton, to Cowra—all around this area.

We feel very proud of the contribution we make, which is why I take offence at what the member for Barker said about this us-versus-them attitude of Canberrans towards regional communities. We want our regional centres to thrive, because it's good for Canberra and it's good for the capital region. So I really do take offence at his suggestion that we want to see their decimation, because that's certainly not the case. Those opposite do want to see the decimation of Canberra, but that's another conversation that I had earlier today, which the member for Swan, opposite, has heard.

When this idea, this thought bubble, was originally floated—from memory it was at the press gallery by the former minister—there was very little detail about what it actually meant. The member for Barker says that the committee has extrapolated and is now looking at private and public sector employment. The impression that we got here in Canberra was that this was all about moving government agencies. That, I'm sure, was the language that the former minister used at that time: government agencies from Canberra to the regions. I don't recall much discussion about the private sector, and how would that be within the government's remit anyway? It was all about moving government agencies from Canberra into the regions. That was the raison d'etre. That was the thought bubble behind this decentralisation process. Naturally, Canberrans went nuts about it, which is why we got all those submissions. Canberrans know what coalition governments think of them as public servants and of Canberra as the nation's capital. They've experienced it. They experienced it under Howard and they're experiencing it now under the Turnbull government. They know that the APVMA move, which was touted as the beginning of the decentralisation process, was blatant and shameless pork barrelling by the member for New England, and they know that the blatant and shameless pork barrelling that was the relocation of the APVMA was the thin edge of the wedge. This government's got form when it comes to Canberra and the national capital. Canberrans knew the APVMA was just the beginning—hence the number of submissions. Those submissions sent a very strong message saying, 'Hands off Canberra. We've had a gutful of what this coalition government has in store for us and what it's done already since it was elected.' Thousands of jobs have gone. There have been cuts to national institutions, next to zero infrastructure investment and now this decentralisation, which is a complete insult to our nation's capital and the capital region.

Australians trust their elected representatives to make well-reasoned and viable financial decisions. The decentralisation that began with APVMA is the perfect example of what not to do when it comes to public policy. The cabinet order made by the Minister for Finance which forced the relocation of the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale reinforced the blatant and shameless pork barrel moving of a regulatory agency to the Deputy Prime Minister's own electorate of New Zealand—sorry, that was bit of a faux pas, wasn't it?—of New England, irrespective of the cost. It ignored the recommendations of the $272,000 taxpayer funded cost-benefit analysis that was commissioned by the Prime Minister, which concluded, 'There were no strategic or other benefits to the move.' It ignored the advice from key industry associations such as CropLife Australia, Animal Medicines Australia and the National Farmers Federation, as well as the Turnbull government's own ACT senator, Senator Seselja. The committee inquiring into the cabinet order found:

… this government policy order is deficient in a number of key areas. This order is opposed by stakeholders, the agricultural sector, and the regulator itself on the basis that it is 'all cost and no benefit'.

It went on:

The lack of clarity regarding the decision-making process and the absence of a transparent selection process leads the committee to conclude that there is only one obvious driver for the decision, and that is political self-interest.

The Senate committee recommended the order be revoked and the APVMA relocation be paused until the authority concluded its review of its business model, but this didn't happen.

In my submission to the select committee, I recommended that any decentralisation policy or decision made by the government commit to a cost-benefit analysis of its proposed decentralisation strategy and makes the outcome of that analysis available to the public, because it was really difficult to get an understanding of the analysis here. I also recommended that the government act in accordance with the outcomes of such analysis. If that had been the case with the analysis on the APVMA relocation, it wouldn't have gone ahead. As a result of the shameless pork-barrel proposal for the relocation of the APVMA to New England, on-time approvals fell to 24 per cent in June last year, which was well below the peak of 82 per cent in September the year before. That agency has been decimated. According to last year's figures, 50 of its 175 staff had left and 20 per cent of the highly specialised staff—with hundreds of years of experience and expertise between them—had gone. As a result of that, what do we have? That freefall in approvals.

In my submission to the select committee, I also recommended that decisions regarding decentralisation should only be subject to an open and transparent public consultation process that takes into account the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis. I recommended that the Turnbull government acknowledge—I wish the member for Barker was in this room—that just 38 per cent of the Commonwealth government's administration is located in Canberra and that further decentralisation has the potential to decimate the ACT. Sixty-two per cent is outside Canberra. How much does the government want to move outside Canberra? There's only 38 per cent of it here. How much does it want to move outside Canberra? And what effect is it going to have on my community and on the community of the capital region—or on the member for Hume's community and the member for Eden-Monaro's community? I recommended in my submission that the government stay true to the vision of Sir Robert Menzies, that self-confessed apostle of Canberra. And I asked and recommended that any decentralisation policy or decision be based on a demonstrated net benefit to the nation and not at the expense of the Canberra community and the Canberra economy and the capital region.

In my submission, I quoted a letter from Heather Henderson, the daughter of the late Sir Robert Menzies. She said:

Why are we taking this retrograde step, scattering our government?

Why are we spending millions to become less efficient?

She also said:

Recently I heard Barnaby Joyce say "There is a chemistry when people meet face to face".

Exactly so.

Modern communications are brilliant, but real personal contact remains vital.

She confessed she was the daughter of Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the modern Liberal Party, the person who, despite his scepticism, established and invested in this nation. Decentralisation will unpick that legacy, the Menzies legacy, and denigrate his vision for our nation's capital. (Time expired)

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note to the Federation Chamber that adjournment is normally set at approximately 7.30, but, with the compliance of those in the room, we'll continue with the member for Indi.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you so much for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. Colleagues, I would like to acknowledge the work of the committee and the secretariat and, in particular, thank Dr McVeigh, the member for Groom, for his leadership and congratulate him on his promotion. I hope we can continue to work together on this really important topic. I'd also like to acknowledge and welcome onto the committee the members for Gippsland, Hinkler and Forrest. I look forward to their contributions.

For those who don't already understand how important the regions are and, consequently, how important this inquiry is, I note that rural Australia is responsible for one-third of total employment in this country and just one-third of our economic output, but about two-thirds of all our exports by value. Regional capitals are home to about one-quarter of all Australians. So tonight we're talking about a really, really significant part of our population.

I've been absolutely delighted to play a role on this committee. I'm glad we've tabled the interim report, and I'm looking forward to the next part of the work, which is the analysis. To date on this committee, we've heard so much that, I have to say, makes me really proud to represent rural and regional Australia. We've heard so much that's positive, useful, creative, innovative and visionary. It's exciting. In fact, it's been wonderful to go and visit our communities and hear the members of those communities who have got skin in the game tell us what they're doing, how much they love their community, how much they're inspired by the work that they do, how they create jobs and how for many of them they're building a nation. As we've travelled around the country, the committee has worked together in a really collegiate fashion. We've shared ideas and we've just had a very stimulating time, I think, working out what to do with the information that we've got.

This report marks the halfway mark. We've collected the data and we've read the submissions. Now we've got to do the analysis. We've got to make sense of what we've heard and make recommendations to the government on what happens next. I'm delighted the committee's working so well. I'm absolutely impressed by the level of excellence of the submissions we've heard.

But tonight I want to bring to the attention of the House that, concurrent with our inquiry, the Productivity Commission has also been undertaking a study of the regions. And I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the things that the Productivity Commission has been studying while we've been doing our report. The Productivity Commission report is entitled Transitioning regional economies. It was tabled in December 2017, and it provides many rich and useful insights to the transition in the regions that has been taking place because of the mining boom.

But there are four particular areas that they highlight that I'd like to talk about tonight. The Productivity Commission talks about the role of local government, the role of local leadership, the importance of capacity in our local communities and the need for rigorous evaluation of how we spend money. Colleagues, we all understand how important local government is, particularly in our regions and rural areas. Local government holds us together. It's the form of government closest to the people. As we were conducting our hearings, we were hearing so often how much affected they are by Commonwealth government decisions. They've really called on the Commonwealth to do a much better job of not only funding local government but also listening to them and understanding their particular issues. I'm delighted to let the House know that today I've tabled a private member's motion calling on the government to pay a lot more attention to how local government is funded.

The second area I'd like to mention tonight that the Productivity Commission talks about is the importance of local leadership. Again, all of us who work in regions know that if you don't have local leaders, you don't have a vibrant community, but we hear the Productivity Commission express how important it is to the dynamics and to the flexibility. Resilient regions are those that have good local leadership, locally engaged people with strong community ownership. I know the Australian rural leadership program does a fantastic job bringing forth leadership. In my own community, we have the Alpine Valleys Community Leadership project. Right across Victoria, each of our catchments has a community leadership program that is really doing a fantastic job teaching, creating opportunities for leadership, creating mentorship and bringing forth the leadership that's in our communities. Sadly, I know other states don't have these programs. Queensland doesn't have a community leadership program; nor does New South Wales. Western Australia did for a bit. South Australia doesn't.

One of the things that the Productivity Commission talks about, which I know is really important, is that we've got to have a national strategic approach to coordinating and bringing forth leaders in our communities; leaders at all levels; leaders who work on local school councils, hospital boards and church groups; leaders who take a role in the hall committee and the sports community. You're not born a leader; you actually have to grow into the role, be mentored and learn how it works. I think we could do a lot of really productive work through a formal leadership program. So good on the Productivity Commission for talking about that.

The third area to briefly mention is capacity. The Productivity Commission indicates that where you've got regions where people have capacity, you're doing well, and they're not only talking about education capacity, though of course that's important. They're talking about the capacity around skilled workforces, where you can get the labour force you need and you can employ the people—the professionals, the tradies and the community service people—you need. That was one of the things that we found as we travelled around the country. Kalgoorlie, for example, has an average age of 31 and its biggest issue is getting access to skilled people to work. Darwin is the same, and up in the Darling Downs I know it's similar. So there's enormous opportunity to grow that's only limited by the capacity and the skilled workforce we've got. We have so much knowledge—we know so much—and now the real challenge for this committee is to do the analysis to bring the inquiry home and come up with some really strong recommendations that the government and opposition can agree to that will enable us as a country to move forward.

Some of the principles that I hope to see in that final report are that we adopt a strategic approach based on regions' strength, that we look at the three levels of government working closely together with communities and business, and that we value-add to the work that those three levels of government are already doing. Launceston is an excellent example of that, where the City Deals are being played out. The idea of regional deals that enable everybody to work together has had a lot of support. And we need to be really, really clear in our understanding that one size doesn't fit all. When the Commonwealth does a project and it's meant to be for the whole of Australia, we've got to be strong with our voice in saying: 'Have you done a regional impact statement? Do you really understand what the consequences are going to be for the regions of this particular task?' Two areas that are dear to my heart where this hasn't happened are the government changes to child care, with the enormous negative impact that's had on women's ability and families' ability to work, and the changes to higher education. I'm pleading with the minister for higher education to do some really productive work on a regional higher education framework that enables us to grow our universities, not detract from them.

I want to talk about an experience I had a number of years ago when I was chairing the Regional Women's Advisory Council. That council provided policy advice to the government on rural and regional issues. We had the enormous pleasure of working to John Anderson, who was the relevant minister, and John Howard, who was the Prime Minister. The council commissioned a report to look at what made for success in regional Australia. One of the two important principles out of that study was that it's not actually what government does that has the final impact on success; it's how it does it. When government works with community, we get success. I've been so pleased to hear the Prime Minister use that exact phrase when he's been talking about Closing the Gap—'We won't do things to our Indigenous people; we'll do things with our Indigenous people.' It has to be exactly the same with regional Australia. We need to work together in partnership.

In closing, I say to the parliament and to my colleagues here tonight: we've got a lot of work to do. I think we're really keen to get on with it and do the analysis, and, hopefully, this report will sit in the annals of this parliament as one fantastic piece of work that really did make a difference to the future of the country.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:44