Mr EDE - 1995-02-23
Mr Speaker, last night in this House, for the first time since self-government, we saw a minister in this government lead a group of backbenchers across the floor to defeat a motion moved by another minister of this government. Does the Chief Minister take responsibility for the damage he is continuing to inflict on his own party?
Members: You wish.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, honourable members interjecting 'you wish' to the Leader of the Opposition have hit the nail on the head. Some members of the media seemingly have switched their attention from the debate about the rights of the terminally ill to the politics of it all, and that is their right. They see it as newsworthy and are seizing every opportunity to read things into body language etc that really are not there. Obviously, they have not comprehended that the approach adopted by the CLP to the bill introduced yesterday and the procedures related to its passage through the House, whether these be committees, polls or whatever, is that it is to be a conscience vote.
When I decided to introduce the legislation as a private member's bill, I was fully aware that, on the day of the vote, I might be the only member on one side of the Chamber. If any minister or CLP member wants to vote against it at the end of the day, that is their decision. I will accept that decision. That is what a conscience vote is about. That applies equally to the way in which honourable members exercise their rights, as members of this House, to move motions relating to procedures for handling the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. All of my colleagues, ministers or otherwise, have a right, as members of this House, to do those things. The Leader of the Opposition seems to believe I should be whipping them all into a corner and instructing them on what procedures they should follow. He has missed the point of what a conscience vote is all about and my attitude towards it. Does the Leader of the Opposition honestly believe that the appropriate course for me to have taken would have been to have sought majority support in the parliamentary wing of the CLP?
A member: A majority would be 9.
Mr PERRON: Should I have sought the support of 9 members of the parliamentary wing in a vote on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill? I may have been able to secure the vote of 9 members of the parliamentary wing. That would have made it a party issue, and it would have ensured its passage through this parliament on party lines. I did not contemplate that course of action for one second.
Mr Ede: Come on! You took it to the party last year.
Mr PERRON: I did not contemplate that action at all.
Mr Ede: You took it to the party room last year.
Page 437
Mr PERRON: I will pick up the interjection although it is not my custom normally to talk about party matters. I did inform my colleagues of my intention. However, at no time did I ask for support or otherwise from them. That is a fact.
Mr Ede: Did you tell them you would get back to them?
Mr PERRON: The Leader of the Opposition can try to make play of this matter as far as the internal politics are concerned but, on this issue and this issue alone, this side of the House will have a conscience vote. In relation to all other matters, we are a party and a government and we are united, as we always have been. The CLP has been in government successfully for 20 years, and it will continue in government.
Page 438
Members: You wish.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, honourable members interjecting 'you wish' to the Leader of the Opposition have hit the nail on the head. Some members of the media seemingly have switched their attention from the debate about the rights of the terminally ill to the politics of it all, and that is their right. They see it as newsworthy and are seizing every opportunity to read things into body language etc that really are not there. Obviously, they have not comprehended that the approach adopted by the CLP to the bill introduced yesterday and the procedures related to its passage through the House, whether these be committees, polls or whatever, is that it is to be a conscience vote.
When I decided to introduce the legislation as a private member's bill, I was fully aware that, on the day of the vote, I might be the only member on one side of the Chamber. If any minister or CLP member wants to vote against it at the end of the day, that is their decision. I will accept that decision. That is what a conscience vote is about. That applies equally to the way in which honourable members exercise their rights, as members of this House, to move motions relating to procedures for handling the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. All of my colleagues, ministers or otherwise, have a right, as members of this House, to do those things. The Leader of the Opposition seems to believe I should be whipping them all into a corner and instructing them on what procedures they should follow. He has missed the point of what a conscience vote is all about and my attitude towards it. Does the Leader of the Opposition honestly believe that the appropriate course for me to have taken would have been to have sought majority support in the parliamentary wing of the CLP?
A member: A majority would be 9.
Mr PERRON: Should I have sought the support of 9 members of the parliamentary wing in a vote on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill? I may have been able to secure the vote of 9 members of the parliamentary wing. That would have made it a party issue, and it would have ensured its passage through this parliament on party lines. I did not contemplate that course of action for one second.
Mr Ede: Come on! You took it to the party last year.
Mr PERRON: I did not contemplate that action at all.
Mr Ede: You took it to the party room last year.
Page 437
Mr PERRON: I will pick up the interjection although it is not my custom normally to talk about party matters. I did inform my colleagues of my intention. However, at no time did I ask for support or otherwise from them. That is a fact.
Mr Ede: Did you tell them you would get back to them?
Mr PERRON: The Leader of the Opposition can try to make play of this matter as far as the internal politics are concerned but, on this issue and this issue alone, this side of the House will have a conscience vote. In relation to all other matters, we are a party and a government and we are united, as we always have been. The CLP has been in government successfully for 20 years, and it will continue in government.
Page 438
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016