Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1529..


MR GENTLEMAN (continuing):

employed 70 cleaners. These cleaners, loyal workers of the rat, were paid a wage, received paid annual leave—

Mrs Burke: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance to the issue and personally attacking a member in this place. That is a disgrace. He should come back to the subject matter.

MR GENTLEMAN: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I am talking about a company called Endoxos, not a member of the Assembly. So—

Mrs Burke: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: that is splitting hairs and the member knows it.

MR SPEAKER: The member is entitled to refer to people outside this chamber, although strong language like that might invite a response. It might be better to refer to it differently. I think the member is entitled to refer to a company; that is fair enough. But the names of these companies only need to be used to the extent it is necessary to include it in the debate. I think it is relevant to raise these issues in the context of a debate about a committee that is looking at industrial issues.

MR GENTLEMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I will take that on board. So I will share with you, members of the Assembly, the tale of that company. That company employed 70 cleaners. These cleaners, loyal workers of the company, were paid a wage, received paid annual leave and accumulated long service leave. They even received allowances. These cleaners worked hard, and should any one of them receive a work-related injury the company had insurance to cover these costs. But the company was greedy. It calculated that the profits from its successful cleaning business could be increased if it changed the way it contracted its cleaners.

Mrs Burke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Gentleman knows fair well what he is talking about here. I still maintain he is splitting hairs. He knows full well that I was a director of this company. He knows full well that my husband was denied—

MR GENTLEMAN: What is the point of order, Mrs Burke?

Mrs Burke: Please let me have my say, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Well, what is the point of order?

Mrs Burke: My husband was denied a citizen's right of reply in this place. I ask that the member stick to the industrial relations facts, not go towards the personal. It is getting too close to being personal and the member knows that, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Well, it is appropriate. This is a discussion about a committee that represents—

Mr Stefaniak: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

MR SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. One point of order has been raised. Do you want to add to that point of order? What do you want to say?


Next page . . . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search