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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2016 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 5 May 2016) . . Page.. 1594 ..


MR BARR: Unions or any other stakeholder have no right of veto or undue influence over any procurement decision.

DR BOURKE: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

MR BARR: Can you stop the clock, please?

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Barr, can you please sit down? Point of order, Mr Bourke?

DR BOURKE: Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Hanson has been interjecting with the word “dodgy” across the chamber. That is unparliamentary.

Mr Hanson interjecting—

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I do apologise, Dr Bourke. Can you repeat that?

DR BOURKE: Mr Hanson has been interjecting across the chamber “dodgy, dodgy”. It is clearly unparliamentary and I ask that you suggest he withdraw.

Mr Hanson: That is not unparliamentary.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask people to be respectful in the debate. Interjections should be limited and I just ask that people have some respect and regard in the chamber. Thank you. Mr Barr.

MR BARR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The MOU operates entirely within the law and provides the government with important feedback on potential contractors’ industrial relations performance. We value workplace safety and ethical sourcing of labour for government services and works. We know that the Canberra community rightly expects us to uphold those standards in our procurement processes. We will have no part of this tawdry political stunt from the Liberals today.

Mrs Jones interjecting—

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I go to the next speaker, Mrs Jones, I have just asked for people to have some respect and regard in the chamber.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.47): Members will, of course, recall that we already had a debate about this MOU in the last sitting period. My view was that some of the wording in the MOU was ripe for being twisted and manipulated for political gains, and that is exactly what I think is happening. Some of that language is probably what has caused some stakeholders to worry about how the MOU worked in practice. Nevertheless, we have got to the bottom of that.

Last time we debated this I detailed why I believed the MOU was a benign document, why it was not sinister and why, in fact, I believe it probably achieves better outcomes


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