Page 1292 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS STEPHEN-SMITH (Kurrajong—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Families and Community Services and Minister for Health) (3.51): I would like to reassure Mrs Kikkert that we will explore how we can collect data. All I was saying was that it is not easy. That was the only point I was making. It is not straightforward. That is why it requires exploration, and we are very happy to do that because we think it is really, really important. I am not quite sure that all the yelling was necessary.
We will not be supporting Mrs Kikkert’s amendment to my amendment. Again, I think I understand the intention of the amendment but the way it is written in terms of “consider increasing the continuum of care subsidy to a sufficient amount” would have us agreeing that the current amount is not sufficient, which I do not agree with. Mrs Kikkert’s amendment talks about considering an increase in the continuum of care subsidy but the continuum of care subsidy is not just for young people from 18 upwards; it is actually a subsidy right across the continuum of care. It is a subsidy that is provided with Act Together for that broad continuum of care. So it is not that I disagree with the intention of the amendment; as part of the ongoing work that we are doing, I will certainly look at what the appropriate amounts of support should be and how those appropriate amounts of support should be accessed, particularly for young people who are not with a carer. It is one thing to provide a carer subsidy; it is another thing to consider how you would provide financial support to young people and how that would interact with any support they might be getting from the commonwealth et cetera.
That work will definitely be done, but the way that Mrs Kikkert’s amendment is worded has a couple of issues so we cannot support it. I do not really want to go backwards and forwards amending her amendment to my amendment, but I assure her that the consideration of the quantum of any subsidy will absolutely be part of the work that we are already doing.
Mrs Kikkert’s amendment to Ms Stephen-Smith’s proposed amendment negatived.
Ms Stephen-Smith’s amendment agreed to.
Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.
Planning, Transport and City Services—Standing Committee
Statement by Speaker
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, before I give the call to Mr Braddock, I wish to make a brief statement concerning private member’s business no 2. As members would be aware, some of the subject matter of Mr Braddock’s motion on the Gungahlin town centre development is the subject of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Planning, Transport and City Services, which is inquiring into draft variation 364 on the Gungahlin town centre. That draft variation was referred to the committee by the Acting Minister for Planning and Land Management on 31 March
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video