On Tuesday 25 August 2026 I gave a speech on the 2026 Budget Estimates process. You can read my full speech below, or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings (Hansard).
I am here to give my annual contribution on the incredibly underwhelming experience that is parliamentary budget estimates in Queensland. I do feel like the vibe coming back from estimates pretty much every year is that this year is probably the worst ever. I do not know whether that is just a reflection on how bad the process is generally and how useless it sometimes feels, but it is certainly the case that this year there was an incredible amount of interference being run by government members despite the Speaker and Deputy Speaker's best efforts on some occasions to shut it down.
I cannot go any further without referring specifically to the incredible gaslighting we heard earlier from the member for Moggill, who of course sat on every single committee. He really did not want to raise points of order but the standing orders made him. The standing orders made him interrupt questions that were uncomfortable because the questions were out of line. It is all the fault of the non-government members on the committee because they did not rephrase their questions properly. They did not ask questions relevant to portfolios. They could not avoid imputations or inferences. They never took him to Bangladesh, never cooked him sausage on an open flame, never anointed him with oil, never wrote him a novel, and definitely never poisoned the mojitos of his enemies. The idea we are supposed to accept is that it is other members' fault because if we just did the bare minimum they would not have to interrupt us or cut us off. Well, I call bollocks, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest they were not trying to actively cut across lines of questioning. Quite frankly, it is embarrassing for them.
At what point will they realise that the way they conduct themselves in these hearings is a genuine embarrassment for them? I can accept the idea that preparation for estimates is a good exercise for the department and it is great to have done all that leg work but, frankly, the way this government conducts itself in estimates hearings treats anyone who is watching it like an idiot. They are happy to treat us all like a bunch of thicky thicky dumb dumbs who will just keep watching along for the ride.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McDonald): Member for Maiwar, I was going to wait until the end of your contribution to ask you to withdraw some unparliamentary language. I am going to ask you to withdraw that as well.
Mr BERKMAN: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure what language but I withdraw without reservation.
Government members interjected.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members, I will have silence. Thank you for withdrawing, member for Maiwar.
Mr BERKMAN: I will give a couple of specific examples. The first is this objection to hypothetical questions. It is not a complex word and it is not a complex idea. It is a question that involves or is based on a suggestion, an idea or a theory or it involves a hypothesis. The ordinary chair of the committee, who is the member for Nicklin, likes to throw around the idea that anything that is a question that requires an answer is somehow a hypothetical. He has to spend a bit of time in the dictionary and work out what the standing orders mean.
A particular example was when the Inspector-General of Emergency Management was there doing his best to answer questions in circumstances where I suspect he amongst other departmental officials have been told that 'climate change' is not a term we are going to be allowed to use under this government. Nonetheless, he was trying to answer questions but the points of order just kept coming thick and fast to prevent him from answering a question that was clearly relevant to his role.
I almost lost count of the number of times throughout the fortnight where I had to take it upon myself to refer to the administrative arrangements order when other members attempted to pull me up for asking a question in the wrong portfolio area. I think it is, frankly, absurd that these departments would be broken down into such piecemeal sections, as though we cannot possibly ask a question that is relevant to both state development and planning at the same time. Nonetheless, if it is going to be divided up that way, it is incumbent on the ministers and the members involved in these committees to actually know where the boundaries exist.
I also raise the issue of time. There is never enough time. This was laid bare by the fact that, in the session on police, I was waiting patiently for my turn and that was enough for me to completely miss out on being able to ask anything. I will try not to take offence, though.