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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2042 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I could go on and on, Mr Speaker. I have several pages of those comments. They are, frankly, simply an illustration of how weak and how poor this process has been. Members opposite are looking desperately for some kind of club with which to hit this budget over the head. If they think that this estimates report is such a tool they are mistaken.

The fact is that this budget is a good budget. It addresses the long-term issues that the ACT community expects and wants the government to address. Frankly, this report is the sloppiest, least convincing document I have seen presented from a committee in a long time. It is a pity that the committee process has reached the stage where a report of this kind can be presented in this place.

MR HARGREAVES (5.32): Mr Speaker, I hope I will not require 15 minutes. Before addressing the report, I want to touch on something the minister said about previous reports. This report, I think, is my third. One of the criticisms in the past has been that the budget documents have been difficult to read. I have to extend my congratulations to Mick Lilley and his people.

Mr Humphries: Who?

MR HARGREAVES: Mick Lilley. Do you remember Mick Lilley? You would not remember him because he is the guy who went out of town with your sabre stuck out of his back. Mr Lilley did take note of a lot of the issues that people brought forward. I believe it was thanks to him and his staff that we saw Budget Paper No 3 presented in the form that it was. It made very easy reading for members like me. I am sure Mr Rugendyke would share my congratulations to these people in that this set of budget papers is considerably easier to digest than others. I want the record to show that we did appreciate that.

We have just heard from the Treasurer a tirade about this Estimates Committee document being the sloppiest piece of work that he has ever seen. Mr Speaker, coming from the Treasurer, who in my view is the master of the art of sloppy presentation and the art of smoking mirrors, I think that is a little bit rich. He bagged the report but he did not defend his position particularly well. He accused the process of being sloppy and said, and I quote, "It isn't good enough."

He also attacked because the committee did not comment on the Appropriation Bill 1999-2000 (No 3). Maybe the committee had so much work to do on the appalling Budget Paper No 4.

Mr Humphries: And maybe you forgot. Maybe you just forgot.

MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I think my behaviour today has been somewhat exemplary and I would like to continue it. I am being baited by that idiot who exits stage left.

Mr Moore: Is "idiot" acceptable, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: I will check.

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