Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (13 June) . . Page.. 1583 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

It has to be said that there is an enormous difference between a so-called draft budget and the final budget-$40-odd million just for the supplementary appropriation itself. When the standing committees were given a chance to look at the initiatives, they were told, "You can't move things outside the bottom line of that department." Yet, curiously, in the space of a couple of months, up pops millions and millions of dollars, and the government then came up with its Gary Humphries' shopping list. The shopping list had things on it like a free bus service with $27 million over four years.

This raises one of the consistent complaints of committee witnesses. They said the consultation process was a sham. They said it was mainly lip service. What consultation do you think went on about the free bus service, Mr Speaker? What consultation do you think there was with the AEU, with the Parents and Citizens Association or the Secondary Principals Association? Zip, Mr Speaker. None. That was a consistent complaint.

If there is a lesson for any government in providing a budget, it is to conduct the consultation process honestly. I do not think that happened on this occasion. The whole budget process in fact was a sham. I cannot agree more with Mr Quinlan's comment. The only thing is, he puts it a lot better than I can.

Mr Speaker, I have to share with you one of the amazing things that happened in the Estimates Committee hearings. It was reasonably late in the afternoon and one of the members said to me, "It's getting tedious." I thought, well it probably is. Then he said to me, "If you didn't ask these questions of these people"-referring to the public servants and the minister-"we wouldn't be here so long." Well, that is true. If we did not ask any questions, we would not be there that long. Indeed, had we asked the same number of questions that Mr Hird asked we would have been in and out in one afternoon. In fact, Mr Speaker, I suggest that if people wanted to find out the quality of work and the contribution made by members they could check the Hansard to see how much in-depth questioning actually did occur.

Mr Speaker, I cannot let the opportunity pass to make a comment on the contribution of other members. Ms Tucker made her usual in-depth, sometime lengthy contribution. But she at least went for the throat quite a few times and she did the job that she was placed on the committee to do.

Mr Rugendyke sat on the committee and did what he does at every committee meeting. He sits with a black handkerchief on his head and then says, "Convince me." At the end of the day, if you convince him, it is on, and if you do not, it is not on. So there was nothing different about that.

I have to pay credit to Mr Hird. His contribution was the same as usual. I suspect that he was the most consistent member of the committee. In fact, he said earlier on, "I have a job to do." I do not think I am revealing anything untoward here by saying that he does have a job to do, he knows what it is and he does it quite well. He did not contribute to the committee's work but he is still doing his job well.

Mrs Burke, on the other hand, absolutely staggered me. Mrs Burke seemed to be trying her best to contribute. I felt some sympathy and empathy because she was in fact struggling and was trying to do the best she could. All the way through the hearings

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .