505 I note that this year's estimate for the year 1999-2000 is $2 046 million, which shows that the blow-out of $328 million was not a once off. Will the Treasurer explain what has caused a $328 million budget blow-out of supplies and services costs during 1998-99, and will he return to this place with more detail in relation to that budget line?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I had noticed some criticism from the Leader of the Australian Democrats of this particular line in the news media, and he and the Labor spokesperson went on to say that this was an example of the Government spending out of control, a Government blow-out and various other unflattering comments about the inability of Ministers and the Government to maintain control of Government budgets. It is disappointing that the honourable member did not at least take the trouble to try to establish the facts before he went into the public arena with his position. I am delighted that he has asked a dorothy dixer of me this afternoon as it will save me having to ask one of my colleagues to ask the question. I am delighted that the honourable member has been injudicious enough to serve up the dorothy dixer himself. As the honourable member knows, we are only a phone call away from supplying information if he has a particular—

The Hon. M.J. Elliott: I was just asking now.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You were not just asking now, because you spent the weekend on the radio criticising the Government for a blow-out, for profligate spending by the Government and its Ministers and an inability to rein in control of expenditure, and the honourable member said that this was one of the reasons why the Government was having to institute revenue measures on the revenue side of the budget. I have sought advice on this issue, knowing that more often than not the Hon. Mr Elliott gets his facts wrong.

I am advised that almost two thirds of this increase—$190 million—is a reclassification of expenditure and accounting treatment which is different from 1998-99. It relates to the accounting treatment of administering the sale of Cooper Basin gas, which in 1999-2000 has pushed up nominal expenditure by $190 million. This means that on the one hand the Government's expenses have gone up by $190 million, reflected in the supplies and services operating expenditure line to which the honourable member referred, but it is entirely offset by $190 million in a revenue line—the sale of goods and services line—on the other side of the ledger, with no net effect on the budget.

The Hon. Mr Elliott has been revealed for what he truly is, although not everything that he truly is. He has again been found guilty of inadequate and inept research and an unwillingness to at least ask the question of the Government and/or its advisers. He has the information provided to him at a stage where he can spend time looking at these lines. If he has any questions he knows that the Government is always willing to assist, and had he asked we could have prevented him from embarrassing himself and his Party by making these sort of extraordinary claims about what is in fact almost $200 million in accounting treatment that is offset in the revenue lines, so the increase in expenses is offset absolutely and completely by an increase of exactly the same amount in the revenue lines. He could have saved himself and his Party the embarrassment of some of the statements he has been making since the budget was handed down. I am seeking further details—

The Hon. T.G. Roberts interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If you make a mistake, you own up to it: you front up and indicate that you have made an error.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Don't try bluff to bluster when you do not know and do not understand particular figures. All the resources in my office are available to the honourable member so that he can seek to prevent embarrassing himself any further regarding his analysis of the State budget. If he is prepared to ask questions, we can assist him and provide him with answers. If the honourable member is unhappy with those answers, obviously I will be pleased to hear public comment from the him and further questions from him in the Council which may well seek to be critical of the Government and its budget strategy. Let me be honest and say that any Government—

The Hon. M.J. Elliott: You're going to start that now, are you?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, at least we have started, and that is more than I can say for the Hon. Mr Elliott. He left this Chamber saying that he would never return to the Legislative Council because he was going to the House of Assembly. He said that we should mark his words that he would never return. That is an indication in relation to the Hon. Mr Elliott. He stood with the Federal Leader of the Australian Democrats prior to the last election, obviously fully aware of what was going on, and made a series of statements and claims in the last week of that election campaign.

Any Government with a budget as big as the one that this Government has would readily acknowledge that there are pressures, problems, stresses and strains. There are areas where we save money and others where there is over-expenditure. If that over-expenditure can be sheeted home to the Government, the Government must accept the responsibility and the blame and seek to set in train processes to correct that. As Treasurer, and representing the Government, let me acknowledge that.

However, it is unfair when members and leaders of political Parties race into the public arena with an accounting treatment which is completely offset by a $190 million revenue line and seek to portray that as profligate spending and blow-outs, saying that that is the only reason why the Government has had to raise revenue in other areas of the budget. That does no credit to the honourable member, his Party or the parliamentary process.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would be very happy to check those figures. If this is the extent of the criticism that one particular line has blown out, in the honourable member's words, from $20 million to $23 million—$3 million in a $7 billion budget—then I do not think that there would be too many people who will see that as some form of stunning indictment of the Government's budgetary policy and budgetary accountability. I have no direct knowledge of those items that the honourable member has raised. I will again take advice on those issues, and if there is anything useful that I can add to this response some time later in the week I will do so.