Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2016 Week 5 Hansard (5 May) . .
I think the ACT at the border needs a big red sign that says: "Closed for business. No ticket, no start. This is an absolute closed shop. This is a closed shop. Unless you are on the payroll of the union or in the pocket of the union—or, more correctly, filling the pocket of the union—you will not get a fair go in this place."
Ms Burch: Madam Speaker, I think there is an inference in there—
MADAM SPEAKER: Have you got a point of order?
Ms Burch: Yes. I think there was an inference in there from that language that there was some unsavoury, if not corrupt, behaviour between the union and members of this chamber. I refer to "filling the pockets" thereof.
Mr Hanson: Madam Speaker, on the point of order—
MADAM SPEAKER: On the point of order.
Mr Hanson: I think the point that the unions fund the Labor Party, who are signatories to the MOU, was a debating point that both Mr Wall and I made repeatedly. I do not think that it is in doubt, Madam Speaker.
MR WALL: If I may clarify, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, on the point of order.
MR WALL: I was referring to the ACT being a closed shop, there being no ticket, no start, and that unless you are a friend of the union or in fact filling the union's pocket you are not eligible—
MADAM SPEAKER: I think I got that, Mr Wall.
MR WALL: It was not a reflection on any member of this place.
Mr Gentleman: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, if I—
MADAM SPEAKER: On the point of order, Mr Gentleman.
Mr Gentleman: Standing order 55 says:
All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
MADAM SPEAKER: I understand, Mr Gentleman, what the standing order is.
Mr Coe: May we stop the clock, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: No, it is all right. I understand what the standing order is. The question is whether it is an imputation against a member of this place. I think it was a
Next page . .
Previous page. . . .
Speeches . . . .
Contents . . . .
Sittings . . . .