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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2290 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Two members of the government also took a conscience vote and crossed the floor to support the Labor Party and get the shooting gallery bundled through. The numbers are there, Mr Speaker. All I say now is that the members who voted for that in the first place ought to vote for it again to show the courage of their convictions, to show that they really want this thing. But, Mr Speaker, do not expect me to abandon my conscience and allow something through that I am so totally opposed to. The members who voted for this thing in the first place still have the opportunity to vote for it now. I realise that a lot of people are way out of their comfort zone; that some people will have to think; that some people will have to carefully consider how they vote, if they really want this thing through. I do not believe it is my position to meet the conditions of what happened in the first place while other members who voted for it may well refuse to do so.

Mr Speaker, it is my view that it would be negligent and irresponsible for this government to concede government over such a small amount, $800,000 or so out of a $1.6 billion budget, when this is not party policy. It is not party policy. I believe the majority of the Liberal Party membership are outraged at the stance taken by two members of the parliamentary arm of the government. I cannot believe that a government would hand over a surplus budget to an opposition, 15 months out from an election, for that opposition to squander in the lead-up to the next election.

Mr Speaker, each member in this chamber has one vote. Each member will use their vote as they see fit, and I do that too, Mr Speaker. My vote is valid, whichever way I see fit to use it, and this is the way I see fit. I am concerned, Mr Speaker, that different weight is placed upon the principles that people have. The high and mighty believe they have a greater principle than I do. I reject that outright. It is outrageous that the commentator in today's Canberra Times thinks that my principles are not worth as much as someone else's principles. How dare he!

Mr Stanhope outlined very eloquently the unmet need in our health system. I could not have done better, Mr Stanhope. I thank Mr Stanhope for outlining so eloquently the unmet need in our health care system. The basics are not being met, yet we wish to dance off and do the fancy stuff, the trendy stuff, the stuff that the community is so strongly opposed to. It is a quantum leap that I am not prepared to take. I am not prepared to pass this and allow it to happen. The members who voted for this thing should usher this through the chamber if they believe they really want it. The courage of their convictions ought to be there to show that they really want this thing.

It was suggested some time ago that a referendum ought to be used to settle this dispute and to see what people really thought of this shooting gallery proposal. But no, Mr Speaker, the health minister's opinion was that some things are too important for the community to have a say in. Mr Speaker, I think I am speaking for the silent majority, the people who are ringing my office congratulating me for a stand that I am taking. The best referendum we could have would be to take this thing to an election. That may well happen within the next six months at the rate we are going. Let's bring it on. Let's take it to a referendum. Let the people decide whether or not they want this thing. I am ready.

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