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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4262 ..

Ms MacDonald: You are not speaking to the motion, yet again, Mr Humphries. What does this have to do with the motion?

MR HUMPHRIES: Are you telling me that your speech was not seen by a minister in the government or an officer in a minister's office before it was delivered, Ms MacDonald?

Ms MacDonald: Yes, I am.

MR HUMPHRIES: Nobody in a minister's office saw anything to do with your speech?

Ms MacDonald: No, they did not.

MR HUMPHRIES: I cannot say that I am confident about that in every other case when it has occurred. The minister had a well-prepared speech on the subject which dovetailed beautifully with yours. I remain a touch cynical.

MS MacDONALD (4.11), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank those who have taken part in the debate. I might talk about the negatives first and finish on a positive note. This motion is about bringing in positives for people in Canberra, employers as well as employees. The former Leader of the Opposition is hoping soon to be a senator, if he can beat off his colleagues in this place trying to get that position as well.

Mr Cornwell: You are not going on for another 22 minutes, are you?

MS MacDONALD: Only if you want me to, Mr Cornwell. I would be happy to oblige you, Mr Cornwell. I will start with Mr Pratt. Mr Pratt had a few interesting theories. Yet again he failed to listen.

Mr Hargreaves: No, he didn't.

MS MacDONALD: I use the term "interesting"loosely, Mr Hargreaves. Once again Mr Pratt has failed to understand-

Mr Hargreaves: His name.

MS MacDONALD: No, he has failed to understand what has been said in this place. He has failed to understand the reasons for the motion. (Quorum formed.) Thank you, Mr Hargreaves, for calling a quorum. I needed an audience. Mr Pratt failed to understand the basics yet again. The most curious comment during the debate came from Mr Pratt. For some reason it is all right to give portable long service leave to the construction and cleaning industries because they are not career industries. I would like Mr Pratt to explain to apprentices in the construction industry that what they are going to do is not a career. I do not understand the point Mr Pratt was making.

Mr Pratt said that what I am suggesting would turn the term "long service leave"into an oxymoron, because you get the leave even if you have not given long service to the one employer. That is the whole point of the debate, Mr Pratt. We are trying to make an evolutionary change, with the ACT being the organisation you give long service to. You

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