Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 25 March 2010) . . Page.. 1495 ..


the precedent of this place was that I was able to be excluded on that basis, despite the legislation not even directly impacting on that contractual relationship. Here we have a report by the Gambling and Racing Commission which looks at influence. It looks at influence of members of the executive of the ALP, some of whom have contractual relationships with members in this place.

On that precedent, that is a far clearer link. It actually does directly relate. If there is any consistency in this place then the members referred to will be excluded because there is a direct contractual relationship. It does impact. In many ways that is at the heart of what the motion will be. It is to get to the bottom of this report and look at the roadblocks and look at whether or not members of the ALP executive were interviewed, and if not, why not.

Looking at all of these matters, they do relate. The precedent has been set by your predecessor—

Mr Smyth: A ruling.

MR SESELJA: A ruling was given in relation to a contract that was not even affected by the legislation. It was deemed in some way to be closely enough associated, but not directly impacted. On that basis, I was ruled not to be able to speak and not to be able to vote. On that precedent, this motion has to be supported by the Assembly.

MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (10.54): If we are looking at the application of standing order 156, it does not support what Mrs Dunne has moved in her motion and I think that is fairly clear.

Mr Hanson: Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Mrs Dunne: Surprise, surprise!

MR SPEAKER: Order! Let us hear Ms Bresnan. You can comment in a minute.

MS BRESNAN: If we apply standing order 156 as it is, it does not support what Mrs Dunne is saying and that is pretty clear.

Mrs Dunne: How is it clear? Explain how it is clear.

MS BRESNAN: I am not going to respond to Mrs Dunne. The issue, which has been discussed quite a bit here this morning already, is: the contract with Mr Seselja was an employment contract. It was directly related to the discussion that was had. So there was a direct connection to the debate that was occurring.

I think what Mrs Dunne has proposed in her motion is looking at the influence of what happens outside an employment contract, what happens outside to someone who is being employed in an office. I think that is a very questionable thing to be looking at. If we do start getting into that realm, we could apply it to probably anyone in this place and anyone in this place could probably be excluded from any debates that go on. We do have other members who have staff who are employed on boards of


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video