Page 414 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Evidence also matters. The evidence turns out to be that banks have been ripping off Australians. The evidence turns out to be that electricity privatisation pushed up prices and that competition policy was a dud. The evidence—
Mr Hanson: Madam Speaker, this is a little unusual perhaps for a point of order—
MADAM SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Stop the clock.
Mr Hanson: but the MPI is specifically about the importance of ACT laws that are constitutional, evidence based and human rights compliant. Ms Cody has been talking for quite a while now about federal laws. Given that the matter of importance has to relate to ACT laws, I wonder whether what she is saying is in any way relevant to the debate. I ask that you rule on this as a matter of relevance.
MADAM SPEAKER: I think the MPI is broad based. She is talking about laws and the impacts of ACT laws, but I also think she is talking—
Mr Hanson: No, it is ACT laws—
MADAM SPEAKER: She is talking about ACT laws but also about the other laws that impact on the ACT community. Ms Cody.
MS CODY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The evidence turns out to be that, despite spending millions on the trade union royal commission and millions more on the punitive policing of trade unions, the effect of unions is to push up wages, improve workplace safety and increase productivity in the process. That will not stop some Liberals making fools of themselves by repeating disproven slurs about OMCG connections, but the evidence does not matter to them. They prefer the fantasy version.
Thirdly, I turn to human rights. Having seen a lot of protests and a lot of politics in this town, I am blown away by how frequently people’s human rights are put second to the ideological adventures of one group or another. That may be the enthusiasm for anti-consorting laws, the disregard shown by some environmentalists to loggers, coal or power workers, or the great national shame of how our first nations people or those who come by boat have been treated. If your idea fails the human rights test, do not write an exemption for yourself. Instead, think about it some more and come up with a solution that respects human rights and ACT laws.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (3.30): Wow, Madam Speaker; here we go again. What a dog’s breakfast of a speech. That was just extraordinary. That was an incoherent ramble through a whole adventure playground of issues, mostly pertaining to federal laws, which have nothing relevant at all to the MPI.
Getting to the substance of the issues, the Canberra Liberals agree with the importance of laws being constitutional, evidence based, and human rights compliant. As Ms Cody leaves the chamber, let me say that this is one of the most ironic motions from this government ever brought into this place. It is interesting that Ms Cody, in one of her rambling adventures, talked about section 44 and compliance with the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video