Mr Aird - She might if she takes up her job with Virgin Blue.

Mr DEAN - I do not intend to get into arguments, Mr President, in relation to the governments, but I think it suffices to say that Tasmania is in the fine position it is because of the contributions that all successive governments have made over a long period of time. And I guess at the end of the day we could thank the Federal Government for probably the greatest contribution to where we currently are. As an independent member - and, as I said in my campaign, I am 100 per cent independent; nobody could really argue about that - I have the ability to take an objective view of this Budget and to look at it from the point of view of the people. There are certain members, of course, in this Chamber who will find it the way that they have been told to find it, and if they do speak those are the comments they will be making.

To commence, I think the comment on talk-back radio on 21 May 2004 was probably pertinent to this Budget, and that is that this Budget could be termed the 'scatter-gun budget'. Bits and pieces of money have gone off in all directions and, in my view, not necessarily addressing all the right areas. I say, as a lot of other people have said, I would have liked to have seen much larger contributions to certain areas to fix some of the major problems that Tasmania is currently facing. I would have liked to have seen a much larger sum of money earmarked to fix our health problems. I do not think there is any doubt, I do not think there would be any argument, that this State currently has massive problems in the area of health. If you were to ask the people out there now what is one of the major things confronting Tasmanians today, I do not think there would be any doubt that the people would say in the greater majority that it was health, that they would like to see more done in the area of health.

In talking about this issue, I would cite the case of Mrs Viney. A lot of people would be aware of this case; it was much publicised. It was a case that related to Launceston recently. This lady was twice turned away from the Launceston General Hospital. She was there for the purpose of undergoing a fairly serious operation. On the second occasion of her arrival at this hospital, she was given all the preparation that was necessary to undergo her operation; in fact she was on the bed, on the table as it were, only to be told some hours later that the operation could not be performed.

Think about that situation, Mr President, and how distressing that would be. I cannot really - I guess not having been through it - appreciate just how distressing that would be. But what I am saying is that most of the problems that are related to the Launceston General Hospital and other hospitals in this State I think at the end of the day could be money related. I do not think we have it right and we are a long, long way from it.

This is where I am critical of the Government, and I guess, if you were a horse, you would probably say that this Budget is right when you look at the amount of money that this Government has identified to put into racing. Are horses more important than people? That is the question I pose and I want to say very clearly no.

Mr Martin - It's the jockeys and trainers and everyone else within the racing industry; they are people, not horses.

Mr Aird - There are 3 000 people employed in the racing industry, did you know that? When you are making facetious remarks, remember they are people too.

Mr DEAN - We have a lot more people going through the hospital system and more people are dependent on the hospital system than we have people involved in horseracing.

Mr Parkinson - And that's why Health gets $800 million.

Mr DEAN - Some refer to this as a scatter-gun budget and of course the Treasurer and Premier refers to it as Lennon's heart-of-gold Budget. I refer to the horses again - in some respects it is, and if I were to ask Phar Lap - and I guess we cannot because he is dead - and if we were to ask a living horse then they would say, 'Yes, it is a heart-of-gold budget' and that they welcome it. Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against horses. In fact I have recently become a member and I am now -

Ms Thorp - You're now a horse?

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - identifying some interest in horseracing. So it is not as though I am against horses and I do recognise the number of people involved in horseracing.

Mr Aird - Good, because you will become more experienced and more understanding of what goes on in the industry and understand the difference between capital infrastructure for racing and the things that you are talking about in Health.

Mr DEAN - I will move on, Mr President. I will talk to some of the areas that do impact on the people of Windermere, the people of my electorate. As I have previously stated in this House, I have responsibility for a large Housing Tasmania community, in fact the largest in the State, I would suggest, an area in need of low-cost, low-rental housing and an area where unemployment is high. It is an area that does have a real need for government assistance and that is identified throughout the area that I have responsibility for - almost the entire area. It is an area where people, children, predominantly through no fault of their own, have not had the similar opportunities available to them that you and I have had.

I make this point frequently during the many presentations that I give to interest groups and so on that they are there because of the environment in which they live and have been brought up in, not because it is their desire to be there; that is not the case. They are, as is the case with all areas - and I refer to the Newsteads, the Sandy Bays, the Elphins, the Norwoods - wonderful people with a few amongst them who do not want to toe the line. I am going to talk about some of the areas that will impact on them. The extra money provided to improve Health is welcome - and I need to say this very clearly, that it is welcome - but it has not gone far enough and has absolutely neglected the one area of paramount importance to, I would say, almost every family in this State, not just Windermere, and that is oncology services. In particular, I refer to radiation therapy and cancer services, Mr President. For 18 months now this Government has known that a crisis was developing in this area.

Mr DEAN (Windermere) - Mr President, just prior to the lunch suspension I commenced to speak in relation to oncology services and, in particular, radiation therapy and cancer services. I will continue on from there. I think I had just said, and I reiterate it, that for 18 months now, this Government has known that a crisis was developing in this area, the area providing for urgent need - pain relief, and extending a life to cancer sufferers. Radiation services have not been able to perform to their optimum, or anywhere near it, because of a lack of funding to provide reasonable salary ranges. Consequently, staff have been lost to the mainland where their salaries are between 40 per cent and probably 60 per cent higher than they are here in Tasmania, and some in fact have been lost overseas. I understand that some have gone as far away as Canada.

The sad thing here - and this is the difficulty I have - is that the equipment is available in radiation therapy but the staff are not there to use it. Normally it is the other way around. Normally a lot of these situations, Mr President, will be a case of staff being available but the equipment not being there. The equipment necessary is extremely expensive - we know that.

The other fact is that we are told that it would have taken the miserly amount of $250 000 to fix this problem. That is a concern. It angers me, and I know it does many others, to realise that our medical services have to reach crisis point and, significantly, to the detriment of the health of people, before something is done.

Why do we have to wait for the public and media to scream - and that is what happening - before there is a positive action? Perhaps the Leader for the Government might be able to enlighten us about this. The $1.5 million to spend on George Town and Scottsdale hospitals is welcomed and there are a number of renovations and added features needed to those hospitals and I certainly welcome the expenditure, and particularly to the George Town hospital which is an area for which I have some responsibility.

The extra money for dental services is miserly, in my view again, when one considers the extent of this problem, Mr President. We have dentists that are available to students - school dentists and so on - but there are no dental services available to adults in the George Town area. I do not think that the small amount that has been made available in this Budget to assist with dentists will in fact help the George Town people in any way whatsoever and that is most unfortunate.

Mental health is another area in my view that has been neglected over the years. Most would be aware of the recent complaints and allegations relating to the state of the State mental health system. I have raised now with the minister I think some seven or eight fairly serious allegations in relation to management and administration issues and in particular the neglect and abuse of patients within the hospital system.

Mr Fletcher - Allegations of an administrative or matters of a criminal nature?

Mr DEAN - That is still being investigated and I am not in a position to say other than the fact that the allegations as made are quite serious in relation to activity within that area of the mental health system.

I welcome the allocation of $ 6.9 million for mental health services and can only hope that it will be spent where the patients will gain most benefit, and that is my concern. The member for Huon previously mentioned Anglicare's recent release, Thin Ice, about living with serious mental illness and poverty in Tasmania. It was released in May 2004, this month. It makes interesting reading in relation to mental health issues within this State.

There is no doubt in my mind that one of the problems that we have with mental health is the fact that when deinstitutionalisation occurred - and that was mentioned I think in this House last week also by the member for Murchison - the infrastructure necessary to look after these people was never put in place in the first instance, and that is a problem and a concern.

The next matter that I want to touch on with hospitals is cardiology services and I will just speak briefly on that. I have spoken about cardiology services in Launceston in this Chamber on several occasions. It is sad that in the clean-up, and that is the word I use, of cardiology services at the Launceston General Hospital a hardworking and respected cardiologist was virtually forced from that position. I have no doubt some of the inadequacies involving staffing, equipment and general funding as identified by this member will in fact be fixed as a result of the amount of, I think, $400 000 funding to this area for this current financial year of 2004-05. I would hope that that satisfies some of those concerns that are currently within the Launceston General Hospital in particular.

The next one that I would like to refer to is schools. I commend the Government for making $1.1 million available for redevelopment in the Port Dalrymple school at George Town. I visited this school in about 2003 and I must say that on getting out of the vehicle I was horrified by some of the things that I saw in and around that school. A person who has not visited there of late probably would not be aware of it but there is an acid problem there and it is eating away the bricks and the foundation of the school. Some of the bricks have disintegrated and other bricks are well and truly on the way to disintegrating.

My concern here is that unfortunately a lot of this expenditure will be used for that purpose and will not be spent on the classrooms and the other areas in this school that really need attention. This school was built in the 1950s. It is rather a unique school because it is on common land with the primary school, so the two structures are almost together.

I am told that some of this expenditure will go to bringing together some of the commonly?used rooms within those two schools. For instance, they have two areas where teachers eat, rest and so on. They will bring those rooms together and make one room that will be used by both areas, which is a good move. I make the point here that the school is badly in need of renovation. The money will be well expended there and hopefully those areas of most concern and need will be updated. Having said that, there has been some money spent there and it was good to see that. That expenditure has certainly been welcomed by the school. The library in particular, Mr President, had large expenditure on it and brought it up to almost a state-of-the-art building and accommodation.

The next school I want to mention is the Mowbray Heights Primary School and I notice that it has been allocated funds in this year's Budget. I am also aware that this school, Mr President, was a recipient of a rather large funding amount in the year 2003?04. I am not quite certain what that expenditure was for now but if my memory serves me correctly it was for the establishment of an administration block and something to do with further development in the kindergarten area. The Leader may well be able to enlighten me on that as well.

Through that entire year of 2003?04 I was looking forward to being invited along to that school to be part of the opening of the new premises. That never eventuated and I have recently been to the school and in fact have not seen any building whatsoever taking place there. So I would be pleased to know just what has happened to the funding in the year 2003?04 and why the renovations - the new building - did not occur as was stated in the 2003?04 Budget. But I notice there is this further amount provided there now, whether or not that takes into account the money provided last year and is an add?on to it, I am not quite sure. Once again, I would ask the Leader to explain it to me because I am somewhat baffled. Or will the money that is provided again for the current financial year, 2004?05 carry on again as of next year?

Mr Harriss - That is one of those classic examples that I mentioned of rolling them out, year after year.

Mr DEAN - Absolutely. The Government gets kudos for the money that they expended last year on the Mowbray school, and we know nothing happened.

Mr Harriss - That is right.

Mr DEAN - Again they get more kudos. Will they get the same again next year and the year after, and the year after that? It rather baffles me.

Mr Aird - That's in your budget papers.

Mr DEAN - It just keeps rolling over and over.

Mr Aird - No, they have the forecasts of the announcement and then they have allocation across budget years. It is in your papers, I am sure. I could probably find it now for you. What school was it?

Mr DEAN - The Mowbray Heights school. I will continue on, Mr President, and I will refer to the matter of roads and the road in particular that I am interested in - or two roads -

Mr Aird - Excuse me, sorry to interrupt, budget paper 1, page 125, has it there.

Mr DEAN - Thank you for referring me to that, I will take a look at that.

Mr Harriss - But you are still right though, they are just rolling it out again.

Mr DEAN - Yes, you are right, the statement I have made is correct. The funding was there and the funding was not used. That is the point I make, Mr President, and that is clear. There is no argument in relation to that amount of money.

Mr Aird - But you haven't even seen the budget papers, you haven't read the budget papers.

Mr DEAN - I move on to roads and the area of expenditure that I am concerned with, of course, is in the main on the East Tamar Highway, Mr President. It covers an area from the Charles Street Bridge, as I understand, through to the roundabout at the bottom of the Mowbray hill - that is where the expenditure is going to occur - the majority of it from Charles Street through to Forster Street. That will mean that the amount of funding here, which I am gratified about, will allow further strengthening of the road service there and the footpaths and kerbing and will also allow for much-needed changes to the intersection with Forster Street, which is a dangerous intersection. As I understand it, money from this Budget will be expended in that area. I welcome that.

I want to refer a little bit to the skills shortage, Mr President, and the funding that the Government has provided in that area, and I commend the Government for tackling this because it is a problem and there is a dearth of skilled people in the construction business, tourism, hospitality, community services and primary industry. The unfortunate thing, I guess, is that this has been surfacing now for 18 months to two years - over a fairly long period - and the question I would raise here is why wasn't it targeted in the previous Budget, in the year 2003?04. But it looks as though we are going to catch up; there has been money provided here and it is heartening to see. The member for Rosevears, I think, mentioned electricians and that the average age for an electrician was 50-odd. That is so; those are the facts that I have been given too but also I want to mention bricklayers. The average age of a bricklayer in Tasmania as of last year, Mr President, I think was about 52 or 53 years of age, if my memory serves me correctly, which is a clear indication that we have not been skilling people in these areas in the way that we ought to have been. Obviously the building boom has brought this to the surface much quicker and we are now identifying the problems we have there.

It was interesting that about 16 months ago during a conference, I think, at the University of Tasmania at Launceston, I spoke with the Vice-Chancellor and I addressed the shortage of labourers in this area and asked what the university was doing about it. I said to him - and I accept the fact that we need to have professional people and people out there with university degrees and so on - we also need to look at those other areas of skilling people in the areas of building, tourism, hospitality and so on. He agreed and said that they were working with TAFE in relation to that. That was about 16 months ago and that was a pleasing answer, I guess, to the question and the problem that I saw was arising at that time, Mr President.

While I am talking about employment, I just briefly want to talk about payroll tax. It never ceases to amaze me - but perhaps I have this wrong again and the Leader may well tell me - that in a time of high unemployment - and it is still high, Mr President - every individual, in my view, who is capable of working should reasonably be expected to be able to work. At this time, whilst it is much better, payroll tax remains in situ and with no relief for employers. I know the Government is going to say to me, 'But our payroll tax in this State is the lowest payroll tax of any State in this country'. That might be so, but I have great difficulty in understanding why we tax employers for reducing unemployment.

That is in fact what they are doing; they are assisting to reduce unemployment. They are assisting those kids out there, the youth out there, who have done their schooling and done their apprenticeships to get a job, to reduce the queues that we currently have at Centrelink. That is what it is all about. It is not surprising that many employers in fact find it far more profitable to pay employees to work overtime. What the Government is essentially saying is, 'Employ the bare minimum of people because with the extra payroll taxes and the other employee add-ons, with leave and so on, then it really is an uneconomical position for you to take to employ more people'. That is really what it comes down to and I am saddened by the fact that payroll tax did not receive some benefits this year for employers. I think it would have gone a long way to assisting even further with the current unemployment that we have in this State.

Housing: I welcome the no stamp duty on houses up to $150 000 for first home buyers and I guess who wouldn't? It is likely to help many young people get a start into what is, I believe - and I think we would all agree - probably the most prized possession of any person and that is, the right to own a nice home or even the right to own a home. It will be interesting to see how this works and whether or not it will have any bearing on the waiting lists for people wanting to go into low-cost rental homes and Housing Tasmania homes. Unfortunately, I do not think it will, Mr President, because one of the criteria to get onto the emergency list for low-cost housing is your employment status. So whether or not it is going to assist in that area - I am not convinced it will help there in any way whatsoever.

It may well, I guess, have some impact on freeing up other rentals - private rentals - and I think that probably is a bonus and that certainly will be acceptable to a lot of people because it is not that easy now to go out there and get rental accommodation. It is reasonably rare, and of course the price of rentals has increased significantly as well. So perhaps it will assist in that area by freeing up more rental sites. Why a similar allowance cannot be provided to people building a home is another area that is somewhat beyond me, Mr President. I understand this allowance cannot be used in relation to a first home builder, first home owner wanting to build their own home.

Mr Harriss - Yes, it is on the purchase of land where stamp duty kicks in, so the stamp duty relief would apply.

Mr DEAN - Well, that is right. The stamp duty on the purchase of land, you are right.

Mr Harriss - Stamp duty relief would be given. I think that needs some clarification.

Mr DEAN - I would ask the Government to explain the situation in regard to that. Is it envisaged that that will in fact occur as a part of this package, that a first home buyer, or first home builder/buyer, whatever you like to say, will get some relief from the stamp duty payable on the purchase of land? I did go through the Budget reasonably closely - certain points obviously I did not pick up on - but I have not found anything in there that addresses that area, Mr President, and it is somewhat concerning. It provides the builders and the construction companies with greater opportunities to build more houses for the first home buyers, and to sell those homes and make greater profits at the expense of the first home buyer, whereas if they were able to get into it and build a home then they would pick up some relief and some benefits of having done that.

Mr Harriss - Through you, Mr President - the Premier's speech indicated that anybody who qualifies for the First Home Owner Grant will get stamp duty relief, so I presume that should apply to the purchase of the land which attracts stamp duty.

Mr Aird - Only as part of a package. You have to have a package for the land and a house to be built. You cannot just buy the land, get it and then drift off but not build a house.

Mr DEAN - The next point I want to make here - and this really irked me and I wondered whether or not I was hearing correctly in the first instance when I was made aware of it - is that I cannot understand why a first home buyer buying a house for $350 000 should get any stamp duty relief at all; it is really quite beyond me, Mr President, because there are many second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh home buyers who cannot afford to buy a home to the value of $350 000. That is, in my opinion, a fairly poor part of the Budget dealing with housing.

Mr Aird - So you think we should reduce it to, say, $250 000 or something like that?

Mr DEAN - I am saying there certainly should be a far greater reduction in the value of a home than $350 000. You may well own a house of that value. I certainly do not, and I think that many second, third or fourth home buyers cannot afford and could never afford to buy a $350 000 home, but if you have a first home buyer who can go out and afford to spend that sort of money to get into a home, then I would suggest it is not unreasonable to expect those people to also pay the stamp duties that a second or third home buyer is required to pay. I would much prefer to have seen that extra assistance provided to the low-income bracket people, those people who are buying their first home, and it would allow more people to probably buy into a $60 000, $70 000, $80 000 or $90 000 home. If that were the case -

Mr Fletcher - Not many of them.

Mr DEAN - we would probably -

Mr Parkinson - It is up to $4 000, so the person buying a $350 000 home would still be paying stamp duty.

Mr DEAN - As I understand it, up to $150 000 there is no stamp duty at all.

Mr Aird - That is right.

Mr DEAN - But from that point up to $350 000 it is $4 000.

Mr Aird - But it is a maximum of $4 000.

Mr DEAN - That is right, a $4 000 maximum. What I am saying is, and I think I have articulated it reasonably well, I do not believe that any first home buyer buying a house to that value is entitled to that relief; I think it would be better provided to the person -

Mrs Smith - It is about incentive, not affordability; an incentive for young people to own their own homes.

Mr DEAN - It is the incentive, but we need to get this into perspective, with the greatest respect. The Government is providing assistance to allow people who probably might not otherwise be able to get into a house, to get into their own home. That is what it is being provided for.

Mrs Smith - If I might -

Mr Parkinson - You obviously have not convinced the House. Keep talking.

Mr DEAN - No, I have this member in though.

Mrs Smith - May I put the scenario then that a young couple have gone to university. They have spent their time studying and when they come out they are going to work back at the university at $80 000 apiece. They decide that they can afford the $350 000 - they have never had any money before that but suddenly, because they have chosen that road they have. Someone else has gone out and worked in the retail industry, made their choice at 16, saved a deposit and at the same time they have decided that they can afford and want to buy a $100 000 house. What is the difference between the two?

Mr DEAN - Mr President, the point I am trying to make is that there are those out there who have one or two children and who have not yet been able to purchase a home. They have had to live in rental accommodation for their entire life and an added incentive for those people to be able to buy into their own home ought to be provided in the very lower echelons, for those who can only afford to buy in the $70 000 to $80 000 bracket. I am saying this should happen rather than providing some support to a person who is able to buy into a home valued at $350 000. That money ought to have been provided to assist people much lower down the chain.

It is a matter once again of assisting people with lots of money, lots of means, rather than only supporting those people who really do need support.

Law and justice, Mr President, is a matter that I just want to touch on. As a member of the police service I always felt concern and disbelief that the Government in my time did not consider a Tasmanian police officer as the equivalent of our mainland counterparts. The demands and risks of the jobs are similar wherever you might be. The cost of living in this State is not dissimilar to any other State, Mr President, when you take into account all aspects of living - including travel out of the State and so on. I applaud the Government for this offer - that is, their offer to provide police with the funding or the salary which will now take them up to parity with their colleagues on the mainland. In actual fact, the amount provided by the Government over a three-year period will in fact put Tasmania Police up with the higher-paid police officers in this country, and I commend the Government on that.

Mr Parkinson - Members of parliament aren't that well off.

Mr DEAN - No, you are probably right, member for Wellington. I am saying that the police put their lives on the line, Mr President, on a daily basis in many instances and my belief is that they are entitled to be recognised in almost the identical vein as their mainland colleagues, and that is important. They are hardworking as I said, hardworking and deserving of that money. I particularly refer to the sergeants and constables in making these comments, the people at the coalface, the police officers that you will see turn up at your home if you had a complaint. It is good to see those police being rewarded. I commend the Government for doing so.

The purchase of more ballistic vests and other equipment is also welcomed by Tasmania Police, Mr President. For some time now there have been concerns by police who had to attend fairly serious situations where, because of a shortage of vests, they were not able immediately to get access to one. The position that police would like to have of course is that they could get a vest on every occasion that they wanted one, and with ease. That is currently not the case but this will certainly free it up and make it a better proposition for police. I welcome that and so do all police. It is commendable of the Government to do so.

Interestingly when I looked at that number of vests, Mr President, I thought that I might be able to purchase one from them because when I walk into local government meetings these days I feel at times I need it. So I might try to buy a second?hand one.

Mr Hall - You are bulletproof though, aren't you?

Mr DEAN - Not really. I used to be but I am not as bulletproof as I used to be.

I welcome the Government's position there in providing extra funding for the SES. Unfortunately the SES have in many respects been the forgotten part of Tasmania Police. They perform a wonderful duty. In fact a lot of people might not be aware - I guess most here would be - that they are predominantly made up of volunteers who in fact train hard, work hard and work in the best interests of this State and the country. So I applaud the Government for their support of these people.

I commend the Government for providing funding in the area of domestic violence. We only need to pick up the newspapers on a daily basis just to see how rife domestic violence is in this State. It is not only this State, it is the whole country. When I talk about domestic violence I often use the term 'disease' because that is about what it is. It is tragic to think that there are many people out there - and many males fall into this category - who believe that they have some sort of right to assault their female partners. They feel that they can do that without any possibility of being charged or without police action or what have you. They believe they have that right and to me that is deplorable. So I commend the Government in this regard. Just looking at two or three cases of domestic violence in this State in the last few years which have gone horribly wrong really brings it home to all of us that this area does need support. I am yet to discuss with them the new position with Tasmania Police. In any event, anything in this area to help in this regard is certainly welcomed.

When we think of domestic violence we look at ways to stop it or at least make people aware of what they are doing. With a lot of offences in this State we currently have minimum penalties, Mr President. Perhaps we ought to be looking at domestic violence as one of those offences that attracts a minimum penalty - one strike and you are out; one strike and you are in jail for three months. Maybe it is getting to the stage where we have to as a parliament and government look at these areas to try to see what else can be done in that area. It is not acceptable and must be stopped at all costs in my view. The $17.7 million over four years if spent in the right way should go a long way to changing the attitudes of people in this regard.

In conclusion, Mr President, there are obvious good parts to the Budget and obvious poor parts. I commenced with a reference to horses and it is probably now only fair that I conclude with a comment in relation to foxes. It is a very expensive fox in fact - $2.7 million over the next three years. I was interested this morning to read in the Examiner where a regular writer to the Examiner who writes to the newspaper on an average of probably once or twice every week, almost without fail -

Mr Hall - A serial writer.

Mr DEAN - Yes, you are right. That is a good one. His comment was along the lines that he would hope now that all critics were satisfied because of the fox that had been shot in Triabunna. In that very same paper if we turn over a couple of pages we will see where the Government or I think Mr Emms has reported back to say that the DNA is slightly different to that of a fox. I think the DNA revealed it was not a fox but was probably a foxy cat or foxy dog.

Mr Parkinson - There must have been a bit of inbreeding over the years.

Mr DEAN - You are right. But it certainly was not a fox and it was just interesting that those comments should come out in the same paper on the same day. But at the end of the day I would like to see a lot of that funding - I am a critic, I must say; I am a critic in relation to that area, and I have my reasons for that - going into oncology services in particular. It was only a very small amount that we needed to fix radiation therapy services in this State, and that includes both Launceston and Hobart hospitals.

Mr Harriss - Before you sit down - through you, Mr President - you referred back to last year's budget papers and I will check that because the honourable Leader tried to smash you into a corner.

Mr DEAN - Yes, he did.

Mr Harriss - You were right. The $1.44 billion was allocated to have been spent this financial year. It hasn't been, your question was perfectly valid and he was ducking for cover as usual.

Mr DEAN - Yes, I expected that would happen, Mr President. Thank you.