Page 1535 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006

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

approach: “Let us personally attack Mrs Burke.” I can stand that; I have got big shoulders.

I will be interested to read the Hansard, Mr Gentleman. I suggest, as I have said before, that you make an appointment to talk with my husband instead of taking on the propaganda nonsense and rubbish that you continue with. You probably do not know this, but we have succeeded in the Industrial Relations Commission and have been awarded costs, often not heard of, against the union. That is something that you did not know, I am sure.

It is interesting to see that Mr Gentleman, fully supported by the government, totally ignores House of Representatives Practice, at page 626. I will not be moving from the committee. This is something that Mr Gentleman tried to get me to do early in the piece. I am sorry, I am not going anywhere. I am interested in workers; I am interested in having this debate. It is of great disappointment to Mr Gentleman that I will not be going.

It is a fact that I had, prior to coming to the Assembly, over 14 years of business experience. That poses a big problem for Mr Gentleman because he simply does not know what he is talking about when it comes to running a business. When it comes to organising how to conduct business, he has no idea. Clearly, the ignorant remarks he has made in this place demonstrate that.

I want to be on the committee; I want to be involved and will be. I will not be removing myself from that committee. I will be there to add what I can. I make no apologies for being a thorn in Mr Gentleman’s side. Hopefully, that will make for robust discussion.

Let us move on to the amendment. It is strange that, in the argument that both Ms Porter and Mr Gentleman put up, they argue against their own argument. They are both saying that we have evidence. Of course we have. I have been hearing it. Some is substantiated; some is not; some is still in abeyance. You would all agree with that. If we have the information, therefore, and we have a good case to make, why are we now extending the life of the committee and the reporting date of the committee?

You are telling me that we have information; we can now report. Let us do what House of Representatives Practice says: do the job; get a snapshot of what is happening, if that is looking like it is going to be the way that things are going; and report. There is no need for an extension of the life of the committee and of the reporting date. Your argument flies in its own face. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be saying you have the evidence, yet you need longer to report.

Mr Gentleman: Because more evidence is coming out.

MRS BURKE: No. You used a standing committee for that, Mr Gentleman. Somebody should have explained that to you and, happily, we could have found somewhere to discuss this. As I have said, there is no impact that we can have in a legislative way to make any changes to federal legislation. We know that. The ACT government put a good argument forward to the Senate committee.

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