Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 400..
MR SPEAKER: Ask the question.
MS FOLLETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Berry: You are not supposed to make up standing orders.
MR SPEAKER: And you are not supposed to interject. Order!
MS FOLLETT: And he is not supposed to interject either, surely.
Mr De Domenico: Just ask the supplementary question.
MS FOLLETT: I will.
Mr De Domenico: Good.
MR SPEAKER: Can we all just hold off. I would remind everybody of standing order 61, which states that a member shall not interrupt another member. I ask the comics on both sides of the house to be quiet. Ms Follett, what is your supplementary question?
MS FOLLETT: My supplementary question to the Chief Minister is: What was the corporate restructure undertaken by CRA? What companies within the group remain incorporated in the ACT? Given that we are dealing with a company that is not even in the Canberra phone book, what companies remain incorporated in the ACT? What is the projected benefit in dollars and cents? What is the projected benefit to the Territory from future trading in these shares?
MRS CARNELL: For the interest of the Assembly, standing order 119 suggests that you are not allowed to ask second questions. For all of that, I am very happy to answer that question. The three ACT incorporated companies and the proposed reconstruction are: Conzinc Mining Ltd, transfer of shares from Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd to CRA Ltd; Hamersley Holdings Ltd, transfer of shares from North Western Resources Pty Ltd to CRA Ltd; and Coal and Allied Industries Ltd, transfer of shares from CRA Investment Pty Ltd to Kembla Coal and Coke Pty Ltd. This is in the ACT. I think the bottom line here is: By knocking back this deal, how many jobs did Ms Follett create?
MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, through you, I have a question to the Chief Minister. On Radio 2CC this morning I heard the president of the ACT Trades and Labour Council, Ms Kate Lundy, being interviewed. She was being interviewed about the current public sector industrial dispute, and she made some interesting comments. They were comments which, it seems to me, if they truly represent the views of the Trades and Labour Council, mean that there is no longer a substantive dispute between the trade unions and the