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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2289 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

even if tonight I vote against the budget and I bring down the government, in company with others, and the government changes and becomes a Labor government tomorrow, we are still going to get the shooting gallery because it is the policy of the Labor Party that we should have it too. So I am not to sure of what people are trying to say to me when they say that I should vote this budget down. There is either a democratic process that you subscribe to or there is not

So, I am not dissuaded by the argument that because I do not like the shooting gallery I should now set aside the fact that we had a debate, the democratic process has been satisfied, we had a vote and I lost, and I should now exercise my prerogative a second time in order to destroy a budget when the amount of money that is involved with that project is $800,000 out of a budget of $1.6 billion. It is not a significant sum. Now, I understand that some people are very concerned about that, but I believe that my role from here on in, having lost the argument, having lost the debate about a shooting gallery, is to make sure that this trial is conducted on an open and objective basis so that at the end of the time we can be satisfied that it has been properly and fairly conducted and whatever conclusions are drawn from it are properly sustainable on the basis of reasonable scientific study and the compilation of appropriate evidence.

As part of that, I have told the minister that I believe he should be now stating what his criteria for assessment are. He should have his base data on the table so we know what our starting point is and what we are comparing against in 12 months or two years time. We should have set up a proper process of data collection, analysis, and review so that at the end of the day we know what the trial has done. I do not believe in warm and fuzzy evaluation criteria that has to do, in this particular case, with customer satisfaction. I do not know how you measure it and I do not know what it means in terms of an objective scientific analysis of a subject like this anyway. So that is where I see my responsibility now-to make sure that there is a properly conducted scientifically based evaluation, and at the end of the day we get something out of it that allows us to make a judgment in the future about whether the trial produced anything that we can really base future decisions on or not.

I do not accept the proposition that I should vote against this budget on this issue. I know that others have a different view, but I have stated mine. Although there are a couple of bases for conjecture and controversy about this budget, I am satisfied that I cannot, in conscience, vote down either this element of the budget or the budget as a whole on this issue. So, minister, you are just lucky this year. I will support you.

MR RUGENDYKE (5:41): Mr Speaker, my position is quite clear and unambiguous on this line of the budget. It has been well canvassed in the media over the last few weeks. This is a situation that has been brought about by the Chief Minister's warning at the National Press Club, following the presentation of the budget, where she declared that this was an all or nothing budget. Well, Mr Speaker, I accept that challenge.

As we know, the issue surrounds the shooting gallery. Members will recall that when the shooting gallery proposal was debated some time ago the Liberal Party government gave its members a conscience vote. I too voted according to my conscience on that occasion. I am quite passionate about the tragedy of drug addicts and drug abuse. It concerns me greatly that there are so many people addicted to this terrible scourge. So, Mr Speaker, I voted on that occasion according to my conscience.

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