Page 3003 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 17 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Stanhope from moving a motion concerning Australian Anti-Poverty Week.
Mr Speaker, this week is Anti-Poverty Week. There is no more important issue, I think, in a social sense facing Canberra or the nation than the need for us to ensure that every one of our fellow citizens—that every Canberran and, indeed that every Australian—has the fullest opportunity to participate in the life of the community. It is the nature of the community which we within the Labor Party aspire to achieve that all Canberrans have that opportunity; that they have the capacity to meet their potential and to enjoy the benefits of a prosperous community such as ours and, indeed, a prosperous nation such as Australia.
It is only this week that NATSIM, in collaboration with ACTCOSS, released the latest analysis or assessment of the number of people within the ACT who live not necessarily in poverty but within straightened circumstances. The advice this week from no less than NATSIM and no less than ACTCOSS is that over 13 per cent of the people of the Australian Capital Territory live in poverty.
Mr Seselja: Point of order, Mr Speaker. What we are debating here is whether or not standing orders should be suspended. We are not going through the motion that Mr Stanhope was planning on moving, so I would ask that you call him to order and bring him back to the relevance of the motion being debated.
MR SPEAKER: Just make the connection, Chief Minister.
MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The connection is, of course, that this week is Anti-Poverty Week within Canberra and, indeed, within Australia. This week we have received the latest information and advice from NATSIM and from ACTCOSS, in research partly commissioned by the ACT government, to actually further inform our understanding of issues around poverty, about the level and nature of poverty and the implications of poverty within the Australian Capital Territory, within our community, within our home.
It is important that we, as a parliament, address those issues. Is it seriously suggested by the Liberal Party—or is it simply an example of their lack of concern for people living in straightened circumstances, people living in poverty, battlers—that they do not care about these issues or do not want to debate them or do not want to know about them? Is it that the Liberal Party simply do not want to know about poverty or the people within our community living in poverty that they do not want to debate this issue?
Mr Mulcahy: Point of order, Mr Speaker: you were quite firm yesterday in your determinations that debate on suspension of standing orders ought to be confined to that issue. The Chief Minister is canvassing the subject matter in great detail, advancing his arguments about the issue and debating whether or not the opposition is concerned about poverty. I do not think that it is really focusing on the motion that is before the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .