Page 3240 - Week 11 - Thursday, 13 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Government. Canberra needs now, more than ever, a government which is willing to act decisively on economic policy, not a lazy inept government incapable of making decisions.
One of the most important decisions which should be made to assist in Canberra's economic development is to bring some certainty into our planning system. I remember all too well, as I am sure all members do, the howls from Mr Collaery and from Mr Kaine 12 months ago over the fact that my Government had not introduced new planning legislation. In their 10 months in office - and that is longer than I was in office - this lazy Government has not progressed this issue one iota from when it took power. All that has been achieved is the release of our legislation, which was based entirely on the policy and the drafting instructions developed by Labor last year.
Mr Jensen: What a lot of rot! Goodness me!
MS FOLLETT: You are tetchy on that subject.
Mr Kaine: If you are going to talk rubbish, you are going to get rubbished.
MS FOLLETT: Take as long as you like. My time is unrestricted.
Mr Speaker, I would ask: what has happened to the Civic Square redevelopment project? Tenders have been closed for months, yet not a word has come from this lazy Government as to whether this important project is to proceed. The ACT needs decisive action on industry development and job creation. All we get from this Government is reports and speeches. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the ACT can wait for a report-led recovery.
What has the Government given us in this budget in terms of economic policy? It has simply re-released its decision to implement the Priorities Review Board recommendations on corporatisation. Corporatisation by itself is not economic reform. The Treasurer has failed to explain to the people of Canberra how corporatising the already fully commercial ACTEW will improve its performance. I have no doubt that the efficiency of ACTEW can be improved, but how does corporatisation achieve this?
ACTEW is already a highly profitable public enterprise. This must be clear from the $12m which the Government is taking from it in this financial year. The same can be said for the Gaming and Liquor Authority. It is another extremely profitable ACT public enterprise. Quite clearly the Treasurer is confusing efficiency with commercialisation and corporatisation, and they are not necessarily synonymous. Is it necessarily efficient, for example, to corporatise ACTEW, take away ministerial control over pricing and then establish a regulatory regime to monitor its pricing? What does that achieve?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .