Page 2102 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The recommendations were developed through conversation between parliamentary colleagues, supported by the research skills of the committee office and individual members’ offices. No doubt, the time will come to discuss the individual recommendations in the detail stage of the appropriation bill. I will not waste valuable time here. I will do it later.
I will expect all members to forensically examine the reports. I would like to express my appreciation to my fellow committee members, in particular the committee chair, who presided effectively in sometimes difficult situations. I thank those opposite for their entertainment. During my absence as a minister I had forgotten just how entertaining it could be on the inquisitor’s side of the table.
I also thank my colleague Ms Porter for her valuable assistance. It is incumbent upon me, of course, to express my appreciation to the ministry and to the officers that supported them. Lastly, or almost lastly, I would like to thank the following support staff: the committee secretary, Sandra Lilburn, assistant secretaries, Grace Concannon, Andrea Cullen, Samara Henriksen, Hanna Jaireth, Nicola Kosseck, Margie Morrison and, of course, our administrative assistant, Lydia Chung.
I would also like to say a big thank you to all the good folk in Hansard and for the technical support in the recording studio, led by that legendary fisho Ray Blundell. I would also like to thank my own staff, Jim Mallett and Ian McNeil, for their support.
Mr Speaker, I measure this 100-and-something recommendation report against the 48-recommendation report here. Blind Freddy can work out this one is a little light on justification, substantiation and validation. It is a bit sort of selective. Did you note, interestingly, Mr Speaker, that those opposite criticise the government, the Greens, me personally, Ms Hunter personally, the budget, the report, yet they did not do two important things?
The first was to contribute positive criticism, to offer an alternative, other than just say, “Take money off the arboretum and stick it into street trees.” That was a great one to lead off with. It really offered a precis of Liberal Party policy and it sought the government to do its work for it. It is a policy statement. That is what you have got here; a policy statement.
The other thing they did not do, Mr Speaker, was to acknowledge the existence of the consultant’s report. The ACIL Tasman report to the committee, the review of the ACT budget 2010-11, essentially praised the budget, actually. It did not whack it up in big lights but it said that it was a solid budget. It used the word “reasonable” constantly when it talked about the methodology and assumptions. It confirmed, of course, that the AAA credit rating is well deserved.
Interestingly for me, they left off all the good stuff and put in what they perceived to be all the bad stuff. Really, all they did was to take their bat and ball and go home. These tablets of stone are an absolute waste of trees. You cannot stand there and say, “Take the money off the arboretum and put it into the street trees,” when you come up with a piece of garbage like that printed on paper. You cannot do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video