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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 5 August 2015) . . Page.. 2354 ..

in the ACT, from a secretary of the Labor Party—and I say it again, “If we started throwing people out of the Labor Party for fines, then we probably wouldn’t have any members left.” That is the standard being set by the Labor Party. That is what they are saying is their standard, that so many of their members are facing fines or court action and would be fined and if they were to suspend or throw those members out they would have no-one left. That is an extraordinary thing to say.

I think that comes in part to the point of this motion today: if the Labor Party itself took action, if the Labor Party and the Greens were to say, “We’ve got a problem here. Let’s show some leadership, let’s take some action,” I think the community would be satisfied. The community would be pleased, I think, to see that the Labor Party acknowledged that there was a real cultural problem here. But by virtue of the fact that the secretary of the Labor Party came out and said, “No, we’re happy to keep everybody in the Labor Party,” it seems it is almost a badge of honour in the Labor Party that you have to be a member that is facing some form of court action or fines.

The integration between the Labor Party and the unions, again, is of concern. The secretary of the CFMEU, Mr Dean Hall, who was at that royal commission yesterday explaining himself, is the leader of the union, the CFMEU. He is also, as I understand it, the chair of the Tradies board and was a delegate to the Labor Party national conference. He was one of the seven chosen ones from Labor to go and say at the national conference that this is what the ACT Labor Party believes. Who was picked? The man who was at the royal commission yesterday, the man who runs the CFMEU in this town and whose members and others have been providing evidence about the practices of the CFMEU. And the Labor Party think that that is okay. They think that that is the way to approach it.

Mr Gentleman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Stop the clock.

Mr Gentleman: I understand in your deliberations earlier you said that you did not want to see individuals named during this process. Mr Hanson has named one of the members of the CFMEU several times in relation to the commission. I would ask you to take some action on that.

MADAM SPEAKER: Sorry, to be quite clear, I at no stage made a statement that I did not want people named. I do note in passing that Mr Rattenbury did name people who were subject of charges, which I thought was unfortunate, but it was only mentioned once. Mr Wall referred to charges on one occasion but to the best of my recollection did not name anyone. Mr Hanson has not named anyone who is subject to charges; that is my recollection. But I think that within the constraints of the sub judice rules it is not inappropriate to mention the names of people whose evidence has been broadcast publicly. I do not think that it would be appropriate to speculate on evidence that has not come forward or what evidence might come forward. I think that that would be inappropriate. But to speak about evidence that has been heard in open court and has been reported upon is well and truly within the confines of the sub judice rules.

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