Page 3004 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 17 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: I think the Chief Minister has made a connection to the reason for suspending standing orders, so I cannot rule in your favour, Mr Mulcahy.
MR STANHOPE: I am making the case for why standing orders need to be suspended to allow this parliament, this Assembly, to debate what is certainly the most significant social issue faced by this community—namely, the fact that somewhere in the order of 30,000 Canberrans live in poverty. On the basis of advice and information we received this year, 13 per cent of Canberrans live in what can only euphemistically be described as, if not poverty, straightened circumstances. Some 13 per cent of us in a population of 340,000 live either below or near the poverty line, and of that 13 per cent, of that 40,000 people, the vast majority are women and children.
This is an important issue; there is no more important issue. The government’s preferred position was to debate this matter yesterday. As a result of spurious motions moved by the Liberal Party yesterday, it was not possible for this matter to be debated yesterday when it was scheduled. It was on the program for yesterday. The opposition came into the place with a stunt. You denied the Assembly the opportunity of debating this issue yesterday. Is there a more important matter to be debated this week than this matter? There is not. We sought to debate it yesterday. You prevented that possibility. Today—this morning—is the next available opportunity for this Assembly to debate what is certainly the most significant social issue facing this community—namely, the opportunity or potential for people living beneath the poverty line to participate fully in the life of this community, and the need and the importance of the Assembly to show leadership, to show its interest and to show its determination to deal with this significant issue.
We know the Liberal Party does not care about people living in poverty. We know you prefer to pretend that nobody lives in poverty and that is not an issue you have to worry about. So, today you actually move to avoid the possibility of this Assembly debating poverty in Anti-Poverty Week. (Time expired.)
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.13): Mr Speaker, I hope that we do not spend too much time on deciding whether or not we are going to discuss this motion. I am supporting the suspension of standing orders. I understand where the Liberals are coming from in relation to this. This is private members’ day and, as Mr Stanhope indicated during the adjournment debate yesterday, there is an element of revenge in bringing government business on today. Nonetheless, it is Anti-Poverty Week.
This is a really important issue, and it should have been discussed yesterday at the beginning of Anti-Poverty Week. I think it is churlish of the Liberals in this case to prolong the debate and to actually put off the time that we get onto their business. Let us just say that poverty is at least as important as health. Indeed, it is somewhat connected to it, and I am hoping that we get that recognition when we get onto the substantive debate. All I can say is bring it on.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (11.14): This is not a stunt—I will start by simply saying I agree with the idea of debating the subject of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .