Page 2718 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and, for the benefit of Mr Mulcahy, Garran Oval. Ninety per cent of his constituent representation comes from Isaacs or Garran.
An investment of nearly $5.5 million over the next four years will provide the necessary funds to complete bushfire fuel reduction works required by the territory and municipal services department bushfire operation plan, again something not mentioned by those opposite, and almost $4 million over the next four years will be spent on upgrading and developing fire trails.
Before I address some of the comments of those opposite, I would like quite sincerely to thank Mrs Dunne, who, in criticising the budget and the government’s performance, as is her job, actually had something positive to say about something the government has done about single land use management. She also recognised the appearance of no waste as an environmental measure. I received two ticks from Mrs Dunne and I appreciate that. I have taken a lot of her comments on board. She did make some positive contributions to this debate. She actually offered something. I have to say that that was missing from the contributions of all of her colleagues. That was most disappointing—not surprising; just disappointing.
Mrs Dunne talked about an organisation in crisis when she talked about the so-called leak about a proposed sale of Namadgi national park to New South Wales. We have already debunked that. Any reasonable person would know, firstly, that that is never going to ever happen and, secondly, that it was the product of some brainstorming. We are not afraid to have people put things on the table. There is no such thing as a bad idea. Bad implementation is what is bad about it.
Mr Seselja: So it was a good idea, was it?
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Seselja has just revealed a bit of Liberal Party policy coming up at the next election. He said that it is a good idea to flog Namadgi national park. Good on you! That is a good one. I will be happy to see you on the hustings.
Mr Pratt’s contribution was absolutely typical. It was absolutely typical but most enjoyable, might I say. What did he do? He spent half of his time whingeing about me. Did he offer one single suggestion on what the opposition might do with a budget? No. Did he suggest one single thing that they would do differently? No. All we heard was him saying not to do this, that or something else. His colleague Mr Smyth offered absolutely nothing, either.
Mr Pratt talked about the GDE blowing out to $116 million. Indeed, Mr Smyth referred to that as well. But Mr Pratt did not say anything about the other half, the other half being my comments about the contracts being fixed price contracts. As usual, this pair, the dynamic duo over there, tried their best to take things out of context, thinking that they could get away with it. I have news for them, Mr Speaker: they cannot get away with it. They build straw men and then try to tear them down. The only thing straw about it is their argument.
Mr Pratt revealed absolute ignorance when he talked about the five-year road program and said that there is nothing on page 120 of the budget papers about the five-year road program. I thought I would look it up while he was talking. He was dead right, absolutely
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .