Page 2069 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of time, an unnecessary amount of time. It was absolutely unnecessary. Did you know that the commentary goes over 15 pages and it has got 20 recommendations? Ten per cent of the recommendations relate to the building.
The thing is that it is still in the contemplative stage. How many times do we have to have the argument about the $15.2 million or the $19.3 million? They say, “What is it made up of?” So we get a piece of paper and it tells us what is there. Then they say, “Okay, which part of the reports did that come from?” They were told: “No, this is a reconciliation for you. It is an aide-memoire for you.” But no, no, no. They need to have chapter and verse on that. So we tear off down the cul-de-sac on that one. So much time was absolutely wasted on that. Of course, the absolute pearler of all time was recommending that the sky bridge not be built. I think we might actually see that put to bed once and for all a little later on in budget sessions. But it is really unnecessary. It was totally unnecessary.
There were some real little sneaky ones in there. We described this one here as the biggest capital works program. I do not think so. I think maybe the hospital redevelopment project might have been the biggest one, at 2½ times the cost. We can play semantics. Indeed, what you see happening and being played out in this report is some sword fighting using semantics instead of ratings. I really think that sometimes that belittles the report.
All in all, though, I think the process was a good one. It was a dreadfully long period of time to be doing these sorts of things and being shut up with those people you would normally want to shout at, rather than be shut up with. But I thought the process was professional. As I said, I think the differences of opinion were dealt with very professionally and I take my hat off.
I would also be remiss in my final remark not to say a big thank you to Mr Hanson, who sat there occasionally wrestling with his inner self, not wanting to leap out of the chair, take an axe and become an axe-wielding mass murderer on behalf of the Liberal Party. I admire his self-control and wish it to be reported.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (12.19): What an extraordinary display from Mr Hargreaves.
Mrs Dunne: As usual.
MR HANSON: As usual, indeed, Mrs Dunne. I think we understand why the government is running with four ministers, after a display like that one. In fact, it is bizarre that Mr Hargreaves’s big criticism seems to be about the amount of scrutiny that the Canberra Liberals want for the budget. I think that that is actually what the estimates process is about: inquiring, investigating, exploring and understanding. That requires a body of work. I appreciate that there are some on the committee that do not like doing a great deal of work or exploring and looking for other options; that will allow them to have an easier run during the estimates period, but for Mr Hargreaves to describe that as a fishing exercise—well, we consider it to be scrutiny. No wonder he enjoyed last year’s report so much, because that was the report that avoided all scrutiny.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video