Page 2068 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
their 13 they disagreed with the recommendations and wanted their recommendations put in anyway; so they printed it out, word perfect, and popped it in at the bottom of the page—13 times.
I draw members’ attention, if they want a bit of a giggle at this time of the morning, to page 151 of the report. You will note that 50 per cent of the page is the footnote saying that those opposite dissented. I could be wrong. It could be 45 per cent of the page, but it is pretty good. They have asked for the whole lot to go in.
I do not mind that. I just pointed it out because it amused me. I think it actually shows the context, it shows what the thinking was and what the division of opinion was in the committee. I think where it is helping is where we can have a division of opinion and that division of opinion would find itself in the report and the people reading the report can make the judgement. It has not been sanitised by the five members.
Again, I would like to extend my appreciation to the chair, Mr Smyth, for the way in which he conducted the deliberative sessions. The hearings are probably about 15 per cent theatre and the rest of it is consideration. There is always a bit of theatre in there and—
Mr Barr: Only 15 per cent?
MR HARGREAVES: Yes, maybe a bit more. I remember my first-ever estimates committee. In fact, I made it about 40 per cent theatre. But we did not need to do it this time.
Mr Barr: With no Steve Pratt to storm out, leaving his coffee cup behind.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Barr does remind us of a bit of theatre and we do remember Mr Hird being frogmarched out of one. That was an interesting one we can reflect back on. But the time for people to really get upset is when they see the chair’s report and the comment is diametrically opposed to their view. I think it says a lot for the maturity of this year’s committee that we were able to discuss it and come to a difference of opinion and move on.
I do not recall there being any histrionics, shouting and all of those sorts of things and I thought it was a particularly good process. I would like to have this put on the record, because I have been particularly critical of estimates processes in the past and I think this one is an improvement.
I think my preference was last year’s. I had an absolutely great time last year. I thought the estimates committee report last year was a pearler. It was not straight out of Pratt’s Tackle Box at all whereas this one is straight out of Pratt’s Tackle Box. But you cannot have everything in life and you have to suck it up and get used to it occasionally.
However, I would be remiss, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I did not comment on the obsession. Of course, we all know that when we talk about GOBs, the people opposite are the experts and the masters. I recall that we had a giggle about GOBs in the committee hearing. But the government office building took up an inordinate amount
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video