Mr. Kevin Johnson:

The process lasted for nine months, although a great deal of preparatory work was done during the lead-in time. Our colleague, My. Billy Doyle, was our representative on the commission. I deputised for him and participated in many of the meetings.

Without getting into the specifics of the sessions, there was an open and fair exchange and opportunity for all stakeholders to make submissions, which our organisation did on every matter. Ample time was given for every submission brought to the table to be discussed. Our debates were robust at times, which was healthy.

An interim report was published at the end of last year. It gave people an opportunity to see the prudential matters being discussed. Almost a year has since passed. The following stage involved a public consultation process, one that was open to everybody to bring forward proposals. The commission took presentations from various other stakeholders and interested parties.

The draft scheme is somewhat unique, in that it follows an extensive piece of work. The process allowed all stakeholders to have a say. Parties that may not have been represented directly on the commission had an opportunity to present on the matter. I could not fault the process, which explains why we have been so supportive of it. The start and end of our submission to the committee state the overwhelming opinion of our members, namely, let us get on with it.