Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 5 August 2015) . . Page.. 2355 ..
I did make the point, in referring to the standing orders and the Companion, that the Companion also says at one place that members should not be intimidated or afraid of making a comment for fear that there may be charges in the future. I have actually made it very clear that if there are charges on foot, which there are, they should not be discussed. But it is quite within the possibility for members to discuss evidence. It seems to me not to be improper. I have a fair amount of discretion under the sub judice rules. I do not consider it improper to refer to evidence about particular people and to use their names. But in the same way I have to remind members that members of the public do not have the same rights to response as members of this Assembly do, except through a citizen’s right of reply. I think that members need to be mindful of that.
I did not at any stage say that members should not be named but there are the general conventions of this place that people should do that sparingly. Also, they should not be constrained in anticipation that there may or may not be charges in the future.
MR HANSON: I will turn my attention to the Greens then because I find it perplexing that the organisation, the CFMEU, that is responsible for basically pushing activity in the construction sector and the forestry sector and runs a massive pokie organisation would be an organisation that the Greens wish to associate themselves with. It seems inexplicable, doesn’t it, Madam Speaker? Why would those two organisations want to be aligned? But then you have to look at the fact that the Greens have been the recipients of tens of thousands of dollars from the CFMEU. Is that pokie money? Is it construction money? Is it forestry industry money? It is difficult to know the worst, perhaps.
Certainly we will look with interest at what the Greens do in the federal Senate when it comes to issues like the Australian Building and Construction Commission which is endeavouring to clean up the construction industry. Was it essentially trying to say, “Let’s have a policeman on the beat to make sure that we can look, to make sure there is no corruption, there is no coercion, there is not bribery and blackmail happening here and we have got a cop on the beat”? Why wouldn’t we want that? Why wouldn’t the Greens want that? Why wouldn’t the Greens want a commission on that? I am perplexed.
Again there are rules governing unions that are before the Senate. Those rules would make sure that unions come under the same sort of judiciary requirements and rules as do businesses. Why wouldn’t that be a reasonable thing? Again it would be very interesting to see whether the Greens support those sorts of motions or bills in the Senate, noting that they are recipients of tens of thousands of dollars from the union movement. Indeed the local ACT Greens are not immune in any sense.
Just quickly on this odd line that Mr Gentleman had about domestic violence, it was in this place this morning that government failed to support a motion calling on the government to actually establish a DV court. I find it a little odd that I am to be lectured on this on this day, by this government that refused to support action to establish a domestic violence court—odd that you would lead with your chin on that one perhaps, through you, Madam Speaker, to Mr Gentleman.