Page 5001 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
whether that be particularly those disadvantaged groups in our community but also many other Canberrans who often get forgotten.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.30): The government will be supporting the amendment moved by Mr Rattenbury. This amendment deals with the issue of having regard to a range of principles and broad considerations that, naturally and inevitably, inform good public policies. So the government has no objection to those proposals.
We consider the amendment moved by Mr Seselja to be superfluous. It is dealt with already in (1A)(b). It has regard to people facing social or financial disadvantage, regardless of their circumstances. Obviously, if there is a large family with a person on an average income, they can face energy stress, they can face utility stress—there is no doubt about that—and they can face financial disadvantage as a result. So these circumstances are adequately captured, in our view, in point (b) of Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, and we see no need to add to it in the way proposed by Mr Seselja.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.31): The Greens will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment. I think that Minister Corbell has just covered the points I wished to make. We believe that the overall costs will be considered consistently as we move through these policy initiatives. The point here is to draw out the potentially disproportionate impact on particular groups in our society. We need to have special regard to them.
Of course, any government will have regard to the overall costs. I do not think that is the dispute here. But there are those who are at risk of being disproportionately affected, and that is what we are seeking to particularly cover in this amendment. It is important to maintain that emphasis, we believe, so that future governments and future Assemblies remain mindful of that point in particular.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.32): I think the word “superfluous” used by the minister is an interesting one. Again, we are hearing this disdain for families. Again, we are hearing that the concerns of middle income families in Canberra are somehow superfluous. We disagree with that. We disagree wholeheartedly, and that is why we believe this amendment should be supported.
It is a fact of life that thousands of Canberra families, many of whom will never fall into the technical definition of “disadvantaged”, “low income” or “vulnerable” or however the government chooses to frame it, do face serious pressures as a result of all sorts of cost pressures. A government which imposes additional cost burdens should always be mindful of them.
I find it extraordinary, again, that the Labor Party and the Greens would object to an amendment which would simply ensure that the minister had regard. Are they saying that the minister will not be having regard? That is the message. It has come through in a number of the things that we have debated that the Labor Party and the Greens are not having regard to the overall cost impacts. They are not having regard, particularly, to those who apparently are considered superfluous, which is the tens of thousands of middle income families in Canberra who, we know, do it tough.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video