Page 2700 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to look at all the pages and I can be corrected on this—it has not been made of the main report. We will be happy to take this criticism from the government that Mr Smyth’s and my dissenting report questions decisions of the government. Yes, we do. We question a lot of decisions of this government. We will continue to question decisions of this government.
Mr Smyth: So conversely the Greens and Mr Hargreaves didn’t.
MR SESELJA: Conversely—indeed, as Mr Smyth points out—I am not sure that that critique is being made of the main report. They did not bother to ask questions of the government. It is a revealing dot point. It is a revealing conclusion that they would criticise us, though not our colleagues—not our Labor-Greens colleagues—for some of the recommendations that appear to question decisions of the government. That is as it should be, Mr Speaker. They go on to say:
The Government is concerned about the direct criticism of the Chair—
I wonder why that is. I wonder why they would be concerned that there is direct criticism of the chair. As Mr Hargreaves pointed out in the committee, this was a great report for the government and they were very happy with it. They were happy across the board. They were happy that the main report and the recommendations did not appear to question decisions of the government. They continue:
The report and its figures are unreferenced, which undermines the credibility …
That is not true.
Throughout the report, there are numerous subjective judgements …
Yes, there are. That is one of our roles. If it was just to relay the evidence, we would not need to be there. It is our role, as parliamentarians, as members of the Assembly, to make judgements. Whether they are subjective judgements or objective judgements is going to be in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? We will make judgements based on the evidence that comes before us. What we saw in the committee was evidence of a budget that failed in a number of respects. When we get to other line items, Mr Speaker, we will go to some of those broad failings. When we get to the executive it might be time to give a bit of an overview of some of the critiques. They are there in black and white in a 100-plus page report by Mr Smyth and me.
The government’s response to it cannot even refute the findings. They simply criticise us for having the temerity to question the decisions of government. They do not do that in the main report, and I think that is revealing. It is revealing that they go in to bat for the chair. They do not criticise them for questioning decisions of the government, but they do criticise us because we did question decisions of the government. We will continue to question decisions of the government. As we go through the various line items of this budget, we will go through some of those particular criticisms.
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.32 to 2 pm.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video