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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1797 ..

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are in breach, Mr Rugendyke. I ask you now-

MR RUGENDYKE: No, I have to continue.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am asking you, or I will have to sit you down.


Mr Moore: Use the word "research".


Mr Moore: That is what it is about. It's research.

MR RUGENDYKE: No. This is about the budget.


MR RUGENDYKE: This is about the budget.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: The standing orders are there for all of us.

MR RUGENDYKE: The other thing I said in the estimates hearings is that I will not be part of any political stunt that comes out of the estimates hearings processes, and this is all that this motion can be described as. The $27 million in the budget is something that the government has decided to spend. I have said that they are entitled to spend their surplus as they see fit and be judged by the electorate.

Mr Berry: That is good. I like that. I am happy about that. I am happy you have that position because that sets you-

MR RUGENDYKE: Mr Berry does not like what I have just said because I have corrected his half truth earlier.

Ms Tucker: I take a point of order. Look, I do not know what is going on here. I listened to your ruling on a point of order. You have just been ignored totally by a member. Now, that is fine if that is how you want to run it, but then do not tell other people that they have to listen to standing orders. He is blatantly refusing to take any cognisance of what you said.

Mr Moore: On the point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker: I think what Ms Tucker probably missed was that Mr Rugendyke is following on from the thrust of the argument that I put, the thrust being is it necessary to do this research if, indeed, there is a fundamental principle about supporting a budget. What Mr Rugendyke was arguing is that fundamental principle of supporting a budget. That is what the arguments were. I think he actually is consistent with standing orders, unlike the approach that Ms Tucker took earlier.

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