Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2130 ..


MR SPEAKER: I wish to advise that Ms Tucker has withdrawn the matter of public importance that she nominated for discussion today.


MS TUCKER (4.15): I ask for leave to move a motion concerning the ACT public sector.

Leave not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

MS TUCKER (4.15): I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Tucker from moving a motion concerning the ACT public sector.

Mr Speaker, I am seeking to suspend standing orders to debate something which I believe is of far greater importance than the matter which has been before us for most of the day. The motion I wish to move is crucial to the efficient running of the ACT. The Government is pursuing an IR policy that will erode the conditions of workers and put those on low incomes at risk. It will remove portability and some mobility provisions. It will remove equity across the public sector and will cause an extraordinary amount of industrial chaos. Mr Speaker, I seek the support of this Assembly in moving this very important motion so that it can be debated today and resolved today.

MR BERRY (4.16): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will be agreeing with the motion to suspend standing orders.

MR MOORE (4.17): Mr Speaker, I am going to oppose this motion, for a series of reasons. The first one is that I was with Ms Tucker and Mr Osborne on Monday when they went to a very interesting meeting conducted by the TLC in their offices in Dickson. They raised a series of issues which concerned me greatly. I think it is fair to say that those concerns are encapsulated in the motion that Ms Tucker proposes to put forward. Unfortunately, this being a sitting week, I have not yet had the opportunity to gain an understanding of the other side of this issue. When I saw that it was to be raised as a matter of public importance, I was quite happy to debate it in that way, because that would have brought out both sides of the argument. I was aware, as of last night, that Ms Tucker would be attempting to bring this motion on after the MPI, but I had determined at that time that I would be happy to listen to the MPI debate but would be most likely to oppose the motion coming on. Mr Speaker, I simply want more time to look at this issue. That is a statement that the Greens are familiar with. They say that they need more time to look at particular issues so that they feel comfortable with them.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .