Australians are deeply conflicted and feel they don't have enough information on this critical issue. In addition, politicians need further guidance. We do not need to see any further demonisation of a particular group of people, who we know are already forced to the margins, suffering their entire lives.

As senior Liberal senator Eric Abetz warned last week, plebiscites must go through proper processes, and those processes take time. We can't just succumb to each and every pusher of an agenda. We must consult, have a national conversation about our values and our beliefs.

"Everybody should be concerned if something as fundamental as changing our foundational institution of society, if the plebiscite on that were rushed," Abetz said last week.

I totally agree. Changing our foundational institutions of society is a big step.

So, here is my proposal for the plebiscite question. Forget the one the government has in mind, because we already know how a plebiscite on same-sex marriage will be answered.

Instead, here is my proposal: Do you think more Australians should be pushed below the poverty line?

Security, safety, access to food and housing, these must be the foundational institutions in Australia. I'd say that was more important than whether you can marry your shag (apologies if your sex life deserves more respect than this) but I'm happy for it to be on the list too. Although I'd say starvation wins.

Yet the federal government is about to answer that question about the poverty line for you without consulting with you. It plans to cut Newstart by $4.40 a week by removing the clean energy supplement for all new welfare recipients.

That decision will have a much bigger impact on this society than one about whether we should have marriage equality, which has already been answered by poll after poll and poll, somewhere between 70 and 80 per cent depending how close we are to Mardi Gras.

But what of Australian government support for the entrenchment of poverty? Would it be more than 80 per cent of Australians who think that should continue?

Australian governments do a fine job of making the poor pay. Former prime minister Julia Gillard cut the single parent benefit. During the global financial crisis, when the Rudd government posted a stimulus cheque for about $900, the only group to miss out were the unemployed. If the present Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, oversees the axing of the clean energy supplement, he will be consigning new welfare recipients to live on an income that is 32 per cent underneath the poverty line.

Actually, no, let's skip a national plebiscite on poverty. Instead, let's force politicians to undertake a National Poverty Examination, one by one, with live answers to a panel so there can be no cheating.

Here's my list of questions.

1. The 10 richest Australians have as much wealth as how many Australians at the other end of the scale?

a) 40,000 b) 400,000 c) 4,000,000

2. Do you think wealth disparity is a good thing? Please elaborate on your answer with examples and data.

3. What is the median income in Australia? How far above that is your income?

4. How far below the median income is the poverty line?

5. If an Australian is on Newstart, what do the figures say about how much is left after paying for food and rent?

6. What is the Newstart payment for a single person? For a couple?

7. What is the single person's pension worth?

8. How far would $4.40 go towards buying two litres of milk and two loaves of sliced white bread?

9. Do you think the rich should get richer at the expense of the poor?*

10. When was the last real increase to Newstart?

Since it's unlikely that this federal government would ever allow a plebiscite on poverty or even get its members to face up to the fact that poverty destroys lives, perhaps you could ring your local member and see how they answer these questions.

Most of these questions can be answered with LMGTFY** but just for now, let's look at the single pension, just $397 a week. Newstart is $266 a week – and that is more than $100 a week below the poverty line. On $266 a week, you are meant to be able to feed and clothe yourself and travel to whatever interview you can get.

Even the Business Council of Australia, no friend to the worker or to the poor, wrote in its submission to the 2012 Senate Inquiry into the Adequacy of the Allowment Payment System for Jobseekers and Others, that the then rate of the Newstart Allowance for jobseekers no longer met a reasonable community standard of adequacy: It "may now be so low as to represent a barrier to community".

That was four years ago, and there's been no real increase since then. Instead, there is a cut on the horizon. I'm thrilled that the Australia Institute has put together a letter begging the Prime Minister not to axe this tiny benefit. The letter has thousands of signatures but I'm not sure that will be enough. If this government wants to spend a discretionary $160 million, it should spend that where it really matters, ensuring those on welfare have enough to eat and somewhere safe to sleep. Those are the real foundational institutions of our society.

*This government plans to give me a tax cut. That is utterly ridiculous.

** Let Me Google That For You.

*** I didn't actually have three asterisks anywhere but some of you will read this and infer I don't think marriage equality is important. But eating might be ahead of it, and I'm confident marriage equality activists would agree. Plus they could do without the shitstorm a marriage equality plebiscite would bring.