Page 2100 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
unsubstantiated drivel. There is not one piece of evidence to back it up. Not even the howling banshee Mr Hanson can over-talk the facts and the truth of this matter.
Mr Speaker, some comment has to be made about questions placed on notice. Mr Seselja was responsible for just under 50 per cent of questions placed on notice, and 25 per cent of questions were required to be taken on notice. Remember that there are 12 members participating in the budget estimates process and Mr Seselja was responsible for a third of all questions placed on the notice paper. His office was churning them out at a great rate. The problem, of course, is that Captain Seselja over here and all the rest of them have gone into a catatonic state, Mr Speaker—a complete catatonic state. Talk about missing in action—Jeremy Hanson MIA.
Mr Smyth: CSC—Conspicuous Service Cross.
MR HARGREAVES: I think I am right. At the beginning of this process the committee asked its members and visitors to be reasonable in the placement of questions on notice. This request was totally and entirely ignored with a 30 per cent increase in QNs, a goodly number of which had subsets of between six and 55 subquestions. Very rarely has the ACT seen the use of such a tactic. It was designed to show how hard they can work with little substantive outcome. In my view, it is an abuse of the committee system.
I never cease to be amazed at how the Liberals often turn what is an episodic event into a dramatic systemic failure. This process was, in fact, started by Mrs Burke, continued by Mr Pratt and now is employed systemically by the Liberal Party. For example, Mrs Dunne quoted an episode at Bimberi where an officer was spat upon by a resident, saying that the officer was in danger of contracting hep C. Mrs Dunne had to correct her comments as it is not possible to contract hep C in this way. This did not stop her, though, claiming that there were systemic security failures at that facility. And the Liberal Party considered quite clearly—
Mrs Dunne: No, I asked a question which the minister still has not answered.
MR HARGREAVES: The truth hurts, doesn’t it? Stabbed in the heart! Stabbed in the heart! And what happens when Mrs Dunne is stabbed in the heart? She drivels through her mouth. Most of us just complain. No, Mrs Dunne drivels through her mouth.
I have to say, Mr Speaker, that the Liberal Party considered quite clearly that the estimates committee was a research resource for the political imperatives of that sector of the chamber. What was disappointing, however, was that on receipt of the chair’s draft, those Liberal members felt the format did not suit their purpose. They felt disinclined to contribute to a collegiate development of the parliamentary consideration of the government’s expenditure plans.
That they felt compelled to develop their own report showed me that they preferred to be partisan politicians. Surprising? No. Disappointing? Yes. Contrast this with the Greens’ approach. Their approach was one—
Mr Hanson: Oh, look—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video