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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 5 August 2015) . . Page.. 2356 ..

I commend Mr Wall’s motion. I hope it has the support of members and if they do not support this today I think they should look within them, look within their organisations, and make sure that the conduct of their organisations is in the best interest of the ACT and that we once and for all get rid of any malpractice or worse in this town. (Time expired.)

MR WALL (Brindabella) (4.31), in reply: I must say that members on this side of the chamber are most disappointed that there has been an unwillingness to take action by those opposite today, to put their foot down and say that the actions as outlined in the royal commission are not acceptable. I think it flies in the face of what the business community and those many business operators in the construction industry that I have spoken to and that have contacted my office in recent times about the actions of the royal commission expect. They have been snubbed by those opposite who ultimately refuse to take any action here today and refuse to state that that behaviour as outlined in the royal commission, being perpetrated by the CFMEU, is unacceptable in the ACT.

Mr Gentleman: Madam Speaker, on a point of order again, Mr Wall continues to allege that something improper has occurred. The evidence in the commission has not yet been decided. There are some charges laid. There is no court process. But he continues to allege that our association is improper and that those people that have appeared before the commission have done something wrong. It is not the case.

MADAM SPEAKER: On the point of order, Mr Wall could you—I think I know what you said—repeat what you said?

MR WALL: I was referencing the allegations that have been raised in the royal commission towards the CFMEU. I was not making a personal aspersion on whether or not those allegations are in fact substantiated.

MADAM SPEAKER: I think that this is the space that this debate has to be in. There are allegations, they are out in the public arena, they have been reported at length and on high rotation in the media. I cannot see any problem in repeating the allegations in those terms in this place. It would be improper for—

MR WALL: Can we stop the clock please?

MADAM SPEAKER: Sorry. Yes, could we stop the clock. It would be improper for a member of this place to say that this allegation proves that someone has acted inappropriately. That would be wrong. But I do not know that I have heard anyone do that.

MR WALL: I might just for a moment, in closing, refer to Mr Rattenbury’s comments when he said that it was all politics and no policy. Of course, he, as a member of the Greens, has 92½ thousand reasons why that would be the position he would adopt. I do recall from my time in this place that at some point someone from the Greens stated that the donations they accept from the CFMEU are from the construction arm, not the forestry, not the mining, not the energy sector but the construction arm, of the CFMEU. It raises the question of whether or not the $92½ thousand the Greens have received is potentially dirtier money than it may have been had it come from the mining arm of the CFMEU.

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