Page 2449 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This will be achieved through active promotion of procurement policies to support ACT industry including an extension of the availability and use of the ACT period contracts and the collection and provision of relevant information to both suppliers and purchasers.
There is undue room for manoeuvre in this statement, but I do hope that the Government means what it says and that we may see a supply and tender agency very soon. Indeed, the statement indicates that there may be some ACT preference built into the period contract process already.
The budget raises several issues in the general urban services portfolio area which deserve closer consideration. Most have only been touched upon in my speech already. In brief, these issues are, firstly, ACTION. The real issue is the confirmation of the burden on ACT taxpayers. The budget contains no solution. A variety of salary assumptions are built into the different programs and parts of programs. It is not clear that they are consistent. Table 3 shows the variation in salary assumptions in just the urban services area. The second issue is the efficiency reviews. In several areas efficiency reviews are planned or have already been undertaken, with no real evidence of efficiency dividend occurring or being in prospect. Examples are big bins, the Corporate Services Bureau and the AMS energy management program. What is implied by the non-sale of taxi licences in 1992-93? (Extension of time granted)
Madam Speaker, I have only touched on certain aspects of my portfolio. I could go on and on. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to echo what has already been said about the budget's big omission, and that is to provide an opportunity for increased jobs. May I suggest that the big issue in this budget is unemployment. There is only one way to provide employment, and that is to create a business climate that is conducive to growth in the work force. Until a viable economy exists, no prudent employer can hire people on the off-chance that the economy as a whole will improve.
MS ELLIS (4.43): Madam Speaker, at first I was a little reluctant to contribute to this debate; but after hearing the words of my colleague Mr De Domenico I am driven to respond, particularly in relation to the comments that he made concerning training schemes and the relevance of training schemes to the employment market in this town. Mr De Domenico gave a very distinct impression that training schemes were a waste of money; that they did not do anything; that they did not achieve anything. You can wave pieces of paper in my face until you are blue, Mr De Domenico - - -
Mr De Domenico: It is not my comment.
MS ELLIS: Well, you said it, my dear, and I am about to put a bit of fact onto the record. There are two particular training schemes that I am going to refer to, both of which the ACT Government contributes to. The first one is the NEIS scheme. This year, 1992-93, $154,000 from the ACT Government is going to go into that scheme. The Commonwealth Government provides income support for 40 people so that they can participate. Last year 75 applicants completed courses in marketing, bookkeeping, taxation, insurance and goal setting, and 34 small businesses received start-up capital totalling $114,000.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .