Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 26 March 1987
Page: 1555


Mrs SULLIVAN —I rise, under standing order 66, which relates to being misquoted or misunderstood, in relation to what the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) has just said.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member for Moncrieff claim to have been misrepresented?


Mrs SULLIVAN —I do.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do you seek leave to make a personal explanation?


Mrs SULLIVAN —I do.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moncrieff may proceed.


Mrs SULLIVAN —This is the first time I have needed to make a personal explanation and I was not totally familiar with the form. The honourable member for Makin in his speech misrepresented me twice. In the early part of his speech he accused my of hypocrisy-which I thought was unparliamentary, but allowed to go over my shoulder-because he said that I was going to vote against the legislation. Apparently he thought better of his language in the latter part of his speech when he said that I was going to oppose the legislation. I thought I made it clear-perhaps I spoke a little quickly because time was running out-that I basically support this legislation.

I sought assurances from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his reply to the second reading debate, as to whether or not the legislation provides for quotas. I supported other criticisms made of the legislation by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). However, I did say that I will be voting for the second reading amendment. I shall not read it out, but I will be voting for it. The amendment says that this House is of the opinion that the Bill not be proceeded with until certain other things happen. In the expectation that that will fail and we will then be required to vote on the second reading motion, I will find myself in the impossible situation of having a conflict to indicate my view with one vote on the second reading. I therefore said that I will be abstaining, but if I am satisfied with the explanation I certainly will not oppose the Bill.