Page 3888 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
measure poverty? It has been quite difficult. In fact, in 2004 a Senate Community Affairs References Committee grappled with this very issue. Submissions and evidence provided showed that poverty can be broadly defined in absolute or relative terms. One key thing that stood out to me was that absolute poverty refers to people who lack the most basic of life’s requirements and is measured by estimating the number of individuals or families who cannot provide the necessities of life such as housing, food or clothing. I will talk about those few things in a moment.
Dr Foskey is indeed right to question in the motion the need for a refocus by both government and non-government organisations, to concentrate their efforts on lifting the prospects of real job creation, particularly for young people looking for entry level positions in the community and social service sectors. I certainly stand by and agree with Dr Foskey. I believe this to be an amiable and not unreasonable request of government.
Of interest to me, however, is another point that perhaps should have been addressed as the primary focus of this motion, even before attempting to address levels of unemployment—or indeed underemployment. Of course I refer to the basic human right of shelter. I am moderately surprised that no mention has been made as to how an individual’s housing situation will determine their social and economic position within society. I understand that, on Dr Foskey’s own admission, she is extremely compromised in this place by standing up and talking about housing issues. I now see why she steered clear of that in her motion.
Dr Foskey’s motion refers to ongoing cycles of poverty. These are difficult cycles to break unless, at the basic minimum, a person has a roof over his or her head. Equality in relation to access of services in the ACT, such as social housing and essential services, both public and private, are at the heart of how we, as a fairly prosperous and self-reliant community, can work through the issue of tackling poverty. This government purports to place a heightened value on social justice and protecting the rights of the less fortunate. The Canberra social plan is a good example of this apparent commitment but it appears that little focus is being centred on the matter.
We saw the launch of poverty week this week, with many of the people in this room present. Five years ago the then Liberal government put money into the budget and established the poverty task force. To be fair, there has been a lot of tinkering around the edges; there have been some nice glossy brochures and good plans, and some public servants who have worked extremely hard, but we have seen little action on the ministerial ranks of the government side to really commit to the good work of these public servants by pumping money or resources—and it is not always all about money—where needed.
This is about the minister supporting his good public servants in doing their jobs. The Canberra social plan is a good example of this apparent commitment but, in reality, it appears that little real focus is being centred on the matter. Much more can be achieved with a real focus on and priority around social services. Taking on the problem of poverty is not necessarily about focusing primarily on equality. The issue of social inclusion has far greater merits in a society where all people are provided with avenues to pursue their potential in their personal, work or social lives. It is about removing barriers that will allow individuals to truly have the opportunity to better themselves. I draw members’ attention to the United Nations General Assembly eradication of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .