Page 5000 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
which is why we have included the third provision for the minister to ensure community engagement is undertaken as he or she carries out his or her functions under the act. As we have again discussed to some extent, these are going to involve some small changes and some, at times, large changes in the way we go about our lives in the ACT community. We need to make sure that we have the best input from those in our community, best expertise and best experience, but we also need to ensure that, as government leads on occasion, the community understands why the directions are being taken as they are and has a clear understanding of exactly how those changes are going to be implemented because, if we do not, then the community will be left behind and that will undermine the effectiveness of the policies that are being pursued.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.27): I move an amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s amendment [see schedule 5 at page 5094].
We think that the Greens’ amendment is a reasonable one but we believe we can improve on it with this amendment. What this amendment would do is take account of the broader costs. Again, we need to be careful not to fall into this trap. What the amendment I am moving would do is ensure that regard is had to how measures to address climate change are likely to cost households and businesses and how much measures to address climate change are likely to cost households and businesses in the ACT, particularly those suffering financial hardship.
So I think we need to do two things here. And I think it is true of most policy areas. We need to always have particular regard to vulnerable groups in our community, whether they be pensioners, low income earners, the unemployed, the disabled or those who find it very difficult to get by on a daily basis. Any compassionate government need to have them at the forefront of their mind in their policy making.
What this amendment would do is acknowledge that they are not the only groups that we need to have regard to. So whilst there should be a particular focus on disadvantaged groups, we believe that there are many families who will not ever, under any ACT government scheme, qualify for assistance and who should be considered by the government in making these policies.
That is the principle that we are stating. And that is to say that a family with three children on $65,000 to $75,000 a year, for instance, as we know, are not wealthy. They are not by any stretch wealthy. They face serious cost pressures in the ACT. We know that the likelihood is that government programs to assist disadvantaged groups and low income earners will not touch these groups. So we are saying, “Yes, put a particular focus on disadvantaged groups in our community, that is as it should be, that is what the government should be doing in all its policies,” but it cannot ignore the broader impact on the rest of the community and on businesses.
We are agreeing that there should be that particular focus but we are saying: “Go further. Do not ignore the mass of Canberrans who are certainly not rich and who do it tough on a regular basis, and consider them. Simply consider them in framing these policies.” That does not mean you have to give them a handout but it does mean that you should always have at the forefront of your mind the cost impacts on families,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video