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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 808 ..

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to do some editing there, Mrs Burke?

Mr Quinlan: Duck around a bit.

MRS BURKE: That is browbeating me.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carry on Mrs Burke. But I think if this theme continues it might have to come to an end.

MRS BURKE: Mr Deputy Speaker, let me remind the Assembly that Labor's position was made clear at the lead-up to the 1998 election.

Under Mr Berry's leadership, the ACT Labor Party refused to allow its women candidates to have direct access to funding from Emily's List. Joan Kirner, former premier of Victoria, was especially scathing of the ACT Labor Party-

Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I think you have shown considerable tolerance in the interpretation of the relevance rule. But to simply use this very important debate about support for women facing domestic violence as an opportunity to score political points reflects not only on Mrs Burke's lack of experience in judging the gravity of this motion but also, more importantly, on the ruling that you have effectively already made. I would ask you to instruct Mrs Burke to abide by the rules of debate in relation to the requirements for relevance or ask her to no longer speak in this debate.

Mr Moore: On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I understand Mr Corbell's embarrassment but the motion begins with the words "That this Assembly notes the significance of International Women's Day and"-it has the word "and"-" reaffirms". It deal with accommodation, and I have dealt with that in a particularly open and very thorough way. But the motion does say that "this Assembly notes the significance of International Women's Day". It is entirely appropriate for Mrs Burke to use the significance of International Women's Day to expose hypocrisy on the part of the Labor Party.

Ms Tucker: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I speak to that point of order?

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, I will hear your contribution to the discussion on the point of order.

Ms Tucker: I think the issue here is that there is some similarity. I had a discussion with the Clerk about this this morning because I was going to broaden this motion, so I have had a chance to think about it. Basically how I see it is not how Mr Moore sees it. For example, you could have a motion relating to the ACT land act which calls on the Assembly to specifically address particular issues which are listed as dot points. If we were to accept what Mrs Burke is doing in this debate, she would be able to pick up anything in the land act when debating that motion. I think that basically would not be in order. I think that this is not-

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