Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 7 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 2117 ..
MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Humphries: Tempting as it is, Mr Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
MR SPEAKER: The temptation is great.
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion of Censure
MR STANHOPE: I regret that less than impartial comment you made just then, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Please continue.
Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not think anything can be read into a comment like that at 5 o'clock after a fairly long day. It is a reflection on the Speaker and I would ask Mr Stanhope to withdraw. He rose in his place to censure a member for having supposedly misled the Assembly, yet he has now made a fairly serious breach of standing orders in impugning the independence of the Speaker.
MR STANHOPE: I withdraw any imputation against you, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Stanhope. Please continue.
MR STANHOPE: The situation was quite plain. The document which the TWU brought to the table on Monday was the TWU's firm position, its firm statement to the Government of what it wished out of the EBA. If it was not a firm offer, what was it? We know that the Liberal Party has some difficulty with words like "promises", "core promises" and "non-core promises". Does the Liberal Party, in its negotiations with unions, have some difficulty accepting that there can be a firm offer? Could the Minister explain to us what a non-firm offer is in an EBA negotiation? How does the Minister attempt to distinguish between firm and non-firm offers? What are the non-firm offers of the TWU in the EBA negotiations? Do we have firm offers from the TWU and non-firm offers?