Parliamentary Committees

Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.E. Close:

That the report of the committee be noted.

(Continued from 31 October 2023.)

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:43): I am pleased to continue my remarks. I want to talk about Flinders University. I am pleased that the Vice-Chancellor of Flinders University, Professor Colin Stirling, an outstanding Australian, wrote to me and some colleagues in the parliament on 30 October. Perhaps I will read his letter to the parliament, which summarises a number of the issues that I might otherwise have raised. He writes:

Dear Mr Gardner,

Flinders University acknowledges that the Honourable Connie Bonaros MLC and the Honourable Sarah Game MLC have confirmed they will support the Adelaide University Bill to establish the new Adelaide University, created through the amalgamation of The University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia.

Further, Flinders acknowledges that in addition to the $100 million student equity support fund for the new university, the Government has also committed to creating an additional $20 million fund to support students from regional South Australia.

The State Government has also committed to a $200 million research fund to support the new university, purchasing $114.5 million in land from the University and $30 million for measures to attract international students.

Separately, the Government will also deliver a $40 million Equity Support Fund for Flinders University students from low SES backgrounds.

Finally, to support the implementation phase of the new Adelaide University, the Government will appoint an independent expert with experience of higher education to work with the Government, universities and other stakeholders, including representatives of staff and students.

In relation to increasing access to higher education for low socio-economic students and students from regional South Australia:

Flinders University acknowledges advocacy from members of the Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University for a strong South Australian university sector, where institutions are competing on a level playing field.

Flinders is also grateful for the Government's undertaking to create a $40 million fund for Flinders University to enable us to offer low SES students who choose Flinders the same equity of access as provided by the Government for students who choose the new university. This is an important initiative creating equity of opportunity for students from low socio-economic groups.

Flinders currently educates approximately 40% of all low SES students who attend any of the three public universities in South Australia. As such, a $40 million student equity fund for Flinders is appropriate relative to the $100 million equity fund for the new Adelaide University.

The creation of an additional $20 million fund to support students from regional South Australia would be welcome, but the allocation of that fund entirely to the new University is unfair to those regional students who choose Flinders University.

A fundamental principal underpinning healthy competition and student choice is that equity incentives should apply to students, not institutions.

Flinders students come from across South Australia, with over 2,500 regional and remote students studying with Flinders, representing 13.4% of our domestic student cohort.

Flinders University also has a substantial regional network in South Australia, with locations in Barossa, Berri, Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge, Renmark and Victor Harbor.

Furthermore, there are a number of course offerings (such as paramedicine and nuclear engineering) and regional campuses (such as the Riverland) where Flinders is the only higher education provider in the region.

By only targeting State Government support for students from regional South Australia via the new Adelaide University, students who may wish to pursue higher education with Flinders will not be eligible for regional scholarships and packages via the additional $20 million.

Equity must be equitable; therefore, to redress this Flinders proposes either:

Equitable access to the endowed additional $20 million fund for students from regional South Australia irrespective of the institution they choose, or

A commensurate additional $8 million (i.e. 40%) to the Flinders Students Support Fund to support students from regional South Australia who choose Flinders University.

In relation to growing South Australia's share of funding for high-quality research:

In our submission to the Joint Committee into the Establishment of Adelaide University, Flinders University advocated for equitable investment in research across the sector.

The State Government's well-intended proposal to establish a new $200 million research fund to support Adelaide University's research initiatives is important acknowledgement that an uplift in state investment is needed.

However, investing in research in one institution while excluding the other inhibits competition, undermines the potential university sector in South Australia, and could artificially inflate the success of the new Adelaide University at the expense of Flinders.

Having achieved the highest research growth rate (140%) of any Australian university over the last five years, it is disappointing that Flinders' research impact and trajectory has been overlooked by not committing commensurate investment in our research endeavours.

Flinders recognises that the new university will have additional costs associated with the merger over the short term and the research fund is designed, at least in part, to assist the new university's research activities during the merger process. We also recognise that while Flinders University will incur some costs associated with the merger (including the restructuring of various legal partnerships with The University of Adelaide and University of South Australia), our costs will be marginal compared to those incurred by the new university in the first three years.

However, the research fund is to be legislated in perpetuity and thereby advantages the new university over Flinders University with ongoing taxpayers' investment over the long term.

To redress this, Flinders renews its recommendation for State Government investment in research to be applied equitably across the sector by either:

Equitable access to the $200 million research fund to support research initiatives, or

A commensurate additional $80 million Flinders Research Fund for Flinders University research initiatives.

In relation to the independent expert to support implementation of the new Adelaide University:

Flinders University welcomes the Government's announcement that it will appoint an independent expert with experience in higher education to work with the Government, universities and other stakeholders to support the implementation of the new Adelaide University.

While not party to the new Adelaide University, Flinders has already incurred costs associated with the merger of The University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, and we anticipate incurring more as the complex process of merger is now implemented in earnest.

Flinders respectfully requests that a truly independent expert is appointed as soon as possible, with a mandate to achieve equitable outcomes that do not disadvantage Flinders in favour of the new Adelaide University.

Furthermore, Flinders requests the establishment of an instrument that will ensure that costs incurred by Flinders as a result of the merger of The University of Adelaide and University of South Australia are not borne by Flinders.

I would be happy to discuss these matters at a time convenient to you.

Please note, following requests for Flinders University's position on the proposed Adelaide University Bill, this information has also been shared with various members of the Legislative Council.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Colin Stirling

President and Vice-Chancellor [of Flinders University]

Prior to receiving that letter, I had intended to spend some of the remarks that I was going to make in this period talking about Flinders University on the justification for the commitment the opposition has made, if we form government in 2026, to implement a Flinders research fund, and some further reflections on the disparity and the inequity of that disparity, and I think the damage that it has the potential to do to the sector over the long term, if not corrected.

I am going to save some time by reflecting on the fact that I agree with pretty much everything that has been said by Professor Stirling in his letter. He puts a figure on proposed funds for Flinders University; the opposition at this stage does not. We will consider that figure between now and the next election. But if we are talking about something commensurate with what Adelaide University's research fund has been granted, then the suggestion from Flinders University is not an unreasonable one. It is not the only suggestion that is on the table.

I think one of the key things we need to understand is that the reason the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia have been so eager for there to be funding provided through the merger transition process is because the process itself will create risk that the universities have recognised, and they are seeking to invest to mitigate that risk. It will create complexity, it will create administrative burden, and you will have to merge two IT systems, for example. There will be costs to this, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, that will be borne by the university. For them to apply only their own funding to meeting that challenge would seriously eat into the capital that they have available, certainly to meet all their obligations should a significantly bad event happen, indeed such as we saw just three years ago with the pandemic.

The universities have no appetite to put themselves in a position where they would be unable to meet their obligations, should that happen, so they put to the government that they needed support for that, in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. The government put back to them suggestions. Indeed, the package that has been released publicly is, to an extent, a negotiation. Certainly, in relation to the research fund and the equity fund, $320 million is a mechanism that the government has identified that has a modest impact on the state budget over the course of the forward estimates. The capital sits in the state balance.

I commend the Treasurer and his department to the extent that, in our further election commitment of establishing a Flinders research fund, we propose to use a similar mechanism. There will be a disbursement of funds to the new institution every year in perpetuity over the course of the forward estimates. We are talking about a modest amount. The university is satisfied in meeting its obligations because, over the next 10 years, it will disburse in the order of a couple of hundred million dollars to the university—not over the forward estimates, a much more modest amount, but a couple of hundred million dollars over 10 years.

Over 50 years we are into the billions. I will not be here in 100 years—I hope my children are—but we will have serious money by this stage from the state taxpayers to the new institution. That is okay if it is going to realise its ends because that investment in research is meant to have a multiplying effect on the benefit for South Australia. But the benefit for South Australia is only to be realised if it is a net benefit to South Australia. That is, if the benefit is realised to the University of Adelaide at the expense of Flinders University, then that is not a net benefit to South Australia.

I go back to the phrase I have used a number of times: in many ways, the thing I suspect the research fund will do most often is be invested in research projects, it will be invested in human capital, and it will be invested in exceptional individuals who will be at Adelaide University doing exceptional research. Indeed, investment in their projects could be in terms of infrastructure, it could be in terms of supplies, but mostly it will be in terms of paying significant salaries to significantly uniquely gifted individuals.

Flinders has a number of these people and a number of them are operating in research and similar areas to what Adelaide is doing. It is a hell of a lot easier, if Adelaide University is seeking to implement one of its six pillars of research excellence, that Flinders University operates most of those pillars too. If Adelaide University is seeking to recruit exceptional individuals who are gifted and are going to impact positively on their rankings in these areas, when they are advertising they might not even be seeking to poach from Flinders, but you cannot stop somebody from applying for a job, and it is much easier to change your commute across town than it is to move your family to a different state or a different country.

This is why the vice-chancellor of Flinders University has gone to the committee and explained at great length his concerns, that is why he has written to us, that is why the Liberal Party is surprised that in the crossbenchers' advocacy to the government on this matter to get support for Flinders University, they exclusively seem to have focused on the equity question and not the research question.

The equity question is good; it is good that there is an equity fund for Flinders University. That would have been something we would have put forward and I am pleased that the government has included it in the final package. But the research fund is critical to realising the opportunities for South Australia's economic future and that net benefit cannot be realised unless there is a level of parity in state government investment for Flinders University and Adelaide University.

It need not necessarily start at the same time. As the vice-chancellor of Flinders University identifies, we acknowledge there is a transition cost for Adelaide University in the merger process and offsetting some of the costs of merger is, indeed, part of the purpose of the fund, but rather than giving a one-off grant to the new university, the government has chosen to set up these perpetual funds, managed by the excellent people who manage the state government funds and, as I understand it, seeking a return of 7½ per cent a year on average. That may well change, but certainly we are talking about at least $12 million a year.

I think this highlights the benefit that will come to our state if the Liberal Party's commitment to a Flinders research fund is adopted. I urge the government to consider implementing that. If not over the next few weeks, then certainly prior to the election. We will congratulate and welcome the government's interest if they see the argument as being fair and commit what is a relatively modest resource in the context of the overall budget, but to achieve the outcomes we are seeking to achieve, it is a tremendously important modest investment. It will unlock further federal funding and it will unlock opportunity for South Australia. Therefore, I think it is certainly worthy of the government's consideration. If they do not, then the Liberal Party will deliver it in government after the March 2026 election.

There is a short list of things I still wish to raise in the context of the motion. The particular points raised in the minority report highlight questions about the opportunities for South Australia. Ultimately, and we will talk a bit more about this when the bill comes to the chamber, the Liberal Party will support the bill. We have not had all of our reservations addressed by the government. We have had some of our reservations addressed since the committee reported by the university vice-chancellors, who have been very proactive in their engagement and very positive in a number of the things they have addressed.

Yesterday, I read into Hansard the letter that they wrote to the opposition. I think those risks, significant as they are, must be measured against the opportunity that exists for South Australia. I think it will be useful for me to conclude my remarks on addressing why I think that opportunity is worth considering. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will resume where I left off. In relation to the Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University—and I indicate that I am summarising now and reaching a conclusion—I want to again place on record my gratitude to the excellent committee staff whom I named at the commencement of my remarks for the work they provided us. I want to thank the witnesses who came along in good faith. There were witnesses who made submissions and witnesses who appeared personally, and there were witnesses who argued strongly in favour of the proposal and there were witnesses who argued strongly against. With some of those witnesses, I recommended to members that they read the transcripts of their evidence.

Along with the Hon. Jing Lee, in our minority report I thought we were fairly even-handed in highlighting some of the key evidence, both for and against the proposal, for members who were interested in our submission. It is the honest intention of the Liberal opposition in South Australia to support projects that will advance the South Australian good while applying an appropriate level of scrutiny to those where there is risk involved.

In relation to this merger proposal, on the day that the heads of agreement was signed between the government and universities the Premier identified that swift support for the passage of the merger was necessary and that, as Martin Luther King once said, 'Delay is denial'. After about a week of discussion the government and others in the building came to the view that a committee inquiry was appropriate, and that a three or four month delay apparently was not denial but appropriate scrutiny of what is, for South Australia, a dramatically important decision.

It is a decision that comes with a level of risk. I am not going to repeat a summary of the concerns I had earlier, but it is important to state that what has been characterised in some places as creating uncertainty and fear I would very clearly characterise as raising appropriate questions on behalf of the people of South Australia, who deserve nothing less than scrutiny of a proposal that will so dramatically change not just the higher education landscape in South Australia but the circumstances within which our professionals, who occupy jobs right across the spectrum and right across the state, and important jobs for the Public Service and for private industry, are educated. This is a big deal, and it is appropriate that it has scrutiny.

When you have a level of scrutiny what you also find is that improvements take place. As a result of the parliamentary committee inquiry we had an agreement, or a deal, as has been suggested. Some people oppose the word 'deal', but let us just say there was a press conference between representatives of the government, One Nation and another member of the Legislative Council putting forward amendments to the proposal, including a $40 million equity fund for Flinders University that had not been part of the proposal prior to questions being raised about it.

There was an extra $20 million provided for rural and regional students to assist them in attending the new university that had not been part of the original proposal. There was an independent adviser to the process proposed by government which had not been part of the original proposal. There was a range of other suggestions made by the committee that will, I think, enhance the chances of the merger's success—none of which would have taken place without the questions being raised in the first place.

Far from creating uncertainty and fear, my very, very strong view is that the appropriate and rigorous scrutiny applied to this process, to this bill, to this proposal, by the opposition—and, in fairness, while I do not agree on all of the landings that they came to I would also say by the Greens and, also, clearly in that first week end, the Hon. Frank Pangallo—those questions did not create fear and uncertainty. Rather, I am certain that they landed the proposal in a better place than it started. And was that to the full satisfaction of the opposition? Not quite, but it was an improvement.

I would also like to place on the record my thanks to you, the member for Gibson, the member for Adelaide, the Speaker, the Hon. Reggie Martin, the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Robert Simms—who both at different stages appeared as members of the committee—the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and the Hon. Sarah Game.

As I said at the beginning, not in every moment, not in every single witness questioning did I think that every single question was appropriate. We spent a great many hours together, and I think the overwhelming majority of those hours were conducted in absolute decorum, civility and in an endeavour to find out the most useful information that would help advance the interests of the people of South Australia. I make no further reflection on the committee process than that. Mine is of gratitude, and I think it was helpful.

The opposition has in the last couple of days made clear further ways in which we believe that the outcome for South Australia will be further improved. Regional hubs being actively supported by the state government is the first time that a major political party in South Australia has made a financial commitment to that end. It is not something that has ever been done before in the terms of providing that ongoing support for a regional uni hub.

There have previously been state government allocations of funding to bring universities from overseas: Carnegie Mellon and the London one that has slipped my mind momentarily. These were supported with state government investment money, but the state government has not previously invested significant funds in the university sector. We will invest in supporting, hopefully, Adelaide University or Flinders University to be the anchor tenant in a regional uni hub here in South Australia, and we will also support Flinders University and the research fund I talked about earlier.

Through all of that, we are in a situation where the bill is going to pass and, as I said yesterday, the opposition will be supporting this bill in the context that it is going to pass. Despite the rhetoric of some, the opposition is clearly focused on achieving an outcome that will be for the best interests of the people of South Australia. This university—if it meets its stated ambition, and the numbers work out in the way that they are intended to—can certainly provide significant opportunities for the people of South Australia, although there will be a loss.

There will be a loss of positive aspects of culture at either campus. We hope and we will work towards, we will support the universities to work towards having positive culture, but there are aspects of what exists now that cannot possibly be transferred into a new institution. Does that mean we should vote against the bill? No, not by itself. There are risks, and we have gone through them at great length. There are things that will not work out or might not work out, or might end up indeed in a worse situation than they are before endeavouring on the project. Does that mean that we should not support the bill? It might, but you have to take into consideration and on balance what the likely outcome is.

The majority of the members of the committee who have self identified now—clearly the government, the Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Connie Bonaros—clearly were of a view that it will likely work out. As to the minority report from the Hon. Jing Lee and myself, rather than using the term that the committee did, we instead said:

(1) On the balance of the evidence considered by the Committee, the economic and social interests of the State of South Australia might be advanced by the proposed amalgamation, but Members should note that these opportunities carry with them a number of considerable risks that need to be mitigated…

(2) We believe that while informed Members acting in good faith could reasonably conclude that the risks inherent in the proposal are worth taking, or not, we would suggest that the measures presented in Recommendations 2-7 of the report are essential if the proposal were to proceed—noting that this minority report suggests further measures to strengthen Recommendations 5, 6 and 7.

I have spoken about regional delivery and what needs to be enhanced there for this opportunity to be fully realised. I have spoken about Flinders University and what needs to be advanced there to ensure equity for our institutions and the total net benefit to the people of South Australia. I have spoken about the Magill campus and what is necessary there to protect the people of my community and the community in Hartley from having their rights and needs trampled upon. All of these things can be sorted through and, indeed, positive outcomes can endure. We also have spoken about process and the way that government processes can be improved.

Those are the criticisms that we have had, yet we will support the bill because not only is it too big to fail, as I have said, and not only are we very keen to then lean in and help it succeed, there are good opportunities here. I want to finish by describing how I see these opportunities, particularly reflecting on the minority report that Jing Lee and I put forward. We must work together to see these opportunities realised.

I thank the vice-chancellors of Adelaide University and the University of South Australia, Professor Peter Høj and Professor David Lloyd—I apologise, I have forgotten Peter Høj's postnominals, but he has them—for their positive engagement with the opposition that has also encouraged us towards this position through further identification of risk mitigation measures, partly in response to the minority report.

The merits, as we identified in our minority report, refer mainly to rankings, research and international students. In relation to rankings, from an Australian point of view, Australian domestic students would be more familiar with the Group of Eight title than university rankings per se. It is important the university has already been granted Group of Eight status. When coupled with the fact that, so long as it is not set off course, Flinders University is on track to become a national top 10 university, that would lead to the appealing prospect that every graduate of a South Australian university would be graduating from a top 10 university across the nation. Certainly, that would also be appealing to existing graduates of those universities.

Rankings, as we have said, are largely a measure of the volume of high-quality, top-rated research. Indeed, for that top-rated research, the funding that will come and the scale that will come will assist in attracting that. The intent is that it will attract further international students. At the moment, approximately 30 per cent of the University of Adelaide's students are international students and 21 per cent of the University of South Australia's students are international students.

Adelaide University, especially when it had that top 100 ranking last year, could have sought to have an influx of further international students, but it is the clear intent of Adelaide University to keep in mind that part of the international student experience is to mix with a wide range of people from the domestic market as well, and they see 30 per cent as being an appropriate sweet spot, if you like, for that international student market.

The University of South Australia, when combined with Adelaide University, will see the overall percentage of international students drop down significantly. The University of Adelaide ranking is endeavoured to be maintained. If you return to a University of Adelaide percentage of international students, you would see at least 5,000 to 7,000 extra international students than we have at the two institutions separately. You would also see them paying University of Adelaide prices, which are higher than the University of South Australia prices. That would lead to at least $100 million of extra funding a year to the institution and corresponding economic benefits to the state of South Australia.

We would also see a range of opportunities, combined with the state funding, to provide extra opportunities for researchers. The state funding will attract extra federal funding, and that extra research will lead to improved rankings as well as opportunities for commercialisation of the research outcomes in South Australia and Australia. The research will be aligned in particular to state strategic priorities, and that is useful and important as well, and you will see that virtuous circle of the international student growth, the extra funding, the extra rankings and extra opportunities for domestic students. We are not 100 per cent certain that this will be the outcome, but as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Liberal Party will do all we can to see that opportunity realised for South Australian students and our state.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (19:44): I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to sit as a member on this committee. I value that, as I learned so much more about the university sector. As a graduate of Flinders University, I got the opportunity to hear all about the other two universities in South Australia, the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia, two very different universities with different cultures and different histories. But it is worth noting that separately and independently they have determined that it is in the best interests of those institutions and, importantly, in the best interests of student outcomes and for our state more broadly to merge as one.

We heard evidence from interested parties both for and against the merger. There are a number of things out of those that stand out to me, particularly the $200 million research fund. As we know, in Australia the funding model for universities rewards scale, and our universities in South Australia are at their limit for what they can achieve in their research sector. We want to be internationally competitive, but most importantly this research fund will give us outcomes that will deliver for our society more broadly. I can think of one example: vaccines.

As has been noted by other members, we have a great opportunity here, too, to maintain a presence in our regions, which is incredibly important for equity across our state for students in regional and remote areas. Importantly, too, we will be able to maintain and support a new student union. We will be supporting many more students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, because if you have the ability, you should have the opportunity.

The timing of this merger has the opportunity to take into account and to be very timely with regard to the outcomes of the accord process, and we can be ready and first in the nation to take on those recommendations. This very big shift in our universities in South Australia is also an opportunity to use this time of change to create new course offerings. As our state requires advanced manufacturing and needs highly trained workers, we need new subject offerings that will enable these students and the employers of the future to maintain the skill levels they need.

A larger university will also be better placed to support smaller, more niche courses. Of course, we will also be able to maintain and increase our number of international students. This gives diversity for South Australia and also fills an employment need for those employers across the state who are struggling to find staff.

One thing noted by the Adelaide Airport managing director was the amount of travel dollars that are spent by family visits from those international students who are studying in Adelaide. When their families come to visit, they stay for longer than most international travellers and therefore spend more. It is a great contributions to our state's economy. Importantly too, for me, was the commitment by the universities that there will be no staff redundancies during the process of the merger.

I would also like to turn to and think directly of some of the evidence that was provided to the committee. Chancellor Pauline Carr from the University of South Australia stated:

While some commentators are querying why the change and why now, for UniSA we have known nothing but change. We have consistently adapted to deliver what we believe the future of the state requires and needs of us…

This work—the proposal to create the new Adelaide University, the case supporting it, the compelling vision advanced for its future, the plan to best transition to it, and the evaluation of risks and benefits therein—has all been overwhelmingly endorsed by our Council. The act that is now before this committee and the parliament reflects another element of this good work. Our starting point has been to build from the University of South Australia Act, as one of Australia's most contemporary examples of university legislation.

Within this new act, we can see outlined a contemporary mission for the new institution that is based on excellence, equality of access to higher education, close connections with industry and the profession and the community we serve, together with strong and clear governance. It is indicative that much of the mission of the new university and its language is informed by and reflective of that emerging from the federal government's Accord process.

Additionally, Catherine Branson, Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, stated:

Like our sister institution, the Council of the University of Adelaide is supportive…of the creation of Adelaide University as envisaged in the statement of cooperation that the two universities, the federal government and the state have signed…Next year, the University of Adelaide will celebrate 150 years since it was established. An existential decision for this university is not an easy one to take, so you can know that our support is based on very careful consideration of strategic material, and it is material which has satisfied us that it's in the best interests of our university and of the state for Adelaide University to be brought into existence.

May I turn to some other witnesses. Natasha Harvey, Director of the Centre for Cancer Biology at the University of South Australia, stated:

I see the establishment of Adelaide University as a transformative opportunity for this state and particularly for the research environment…We see that ability to be more competitive for research funding. Also, that by having more critical mass we have more opportunity for translation both not only for patient benefit but for commercialisation of our research, and the ability to attract industry to Adelaide and partner with industry, to commercialise research, and the ability to attract clinical trials as well.

Another witness, Craig Batty from UniSA Creative stated:

The opportunity of having a new entity that can crack open, if you like, the higher education system, a bit like the Universities Accord is looking at, and really rethink what a contemporary, comprehensive university for the future should look like, I think is a much easier, more efficient and exciting way of doing things because we can start from the ground up, rather than just adding more to what exists or just tweaking things. It's like blowing something out of the water to really change it, to become an international benchmark of how to do things really well.

As other members have stated in their comments on this report, I too would like to acknowledge all members of the committee, who have been named. We were very diligent in our work and very collegial, and I thank every member of that committee for working so hard together in such an intensive period. I would also like to thank the staff, who have also been named, for their dedication to the task. I commend this report.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (19:52): I will simply say how grateful I am to the committee for the work that they did. I look forward to debating in due course the legislation that comes from it.

Motion carried.