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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3885 ..

MR SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR BERRY: What did you say? Mr Moore interjected. I wondered what it was and whether it was worth responding to. Mr Speaker, they also expressed some concerns in the general sense that the government's moves will further entrench poverty in the ACT. The centre has to be regarded as one expert in relation to community concerns. It is not an expert that agrees with Mr Moore, so therefore it is not an expert. If the centre says that this will further entrench poverty, I would like to see an argument. I would have expected that an argument would have been presented, not a bunch of weasel words. I mean something sensible in relation to the debate.

The fact is that neither minister has been able to put a convincing argument for their case in relation to this matter. They do not deserve support for the amendment which has been put forward by Mr Moore. All Mr Moore wants to do is gut what has been put forward by Ms Tucker in a most callous way. I just think this a callous move to ignore the proposal which has been put forward. I urge members to support the motion moved by Ms Tucker, as the Labor Party will be.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (5.39): Mr Speaker, I thought about responding to each and every one of those issues, but I think what has become very clear to members is that the debate is ideological. What we are interested in doing in government is making sure that we can use the resources we have to deal most appropriately, first and foremost, with those most in need. I would love to be able to have the ideological freedom of Ms Tucker or the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre. We do not have that. I do not have that choice. I do not have that level of money. I do not know where we are going to get it. That, Mr Speaker, is the choice that we have in front of us. Do we continue with the ideology or do we look after those most in need? If we continue with the ideology, I would have to say that under the current circumstances those most in need are going to be missing out, and that is something that I will not preside over. I could not do that in conscience.

Mr Speaker, I hear people say I don't care; that I am just steamrolling over these things because I don't care about people in need. Nothing could be further from the truth. They say that I am just new to this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. I went and looked in the Hansard. The first time I talked about issues in terms of public housing was on 30 May 1989. That was the first time I raised issues in this Assembly to deal with these sorts of matters. I have done so many times since then.

Ms Tucker: So there is no excuse then.

MR MOORE: There have been many times since then, Ms Tucker, so don't you say to me that in some way I am new to the issues and new to the areas. Am I new to the portfolio? Yes, of course I am new to the portfolio, and yes, I now have the responsibility of making sure that I look after those most in need first. That is why the amendment is important. I have not ignored what you have sought to do. I have said okay; you clearly want me to go back and have a look at the way I have responded to the select committee. The fact that I have moved the amendments means that I will do that. Otherwise I would have to vote against Ms Tucker's amendment. But I have to look after those who are in greatest need now because they need our help.

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