Page 3515 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT (12.15): It is with a great deal of satisfaction that, as a member of the standing committee, I see this discussion paper tabled this day. The concept of issuing a discussion paper in the first instance was a generally held view by all three members of the standing committee. We believe that the promotion of discussion within the tourism industry is absolutely essential if a more cooperative approach to the issues confronting the tourism industry are to be addressed in the ACT. Madam Speaker, in the short time available to me I wish to draw members' attention to page 47 of the discussion paper, and in particular to a number of quite significant issues that have been put forward by the committee for discussion. The first of those is recommendation 11.2, which is:
That the Tourism Commission in consultation with the industry and appropriate conservation and environment authorities examine the potential for ecological tourism and the implications of this for the ACT natural environment.
That is contained in paragraph 3.19 in the body of the report. This is a significant issue which is often overlooked as far as the tourism potential in the ACT is concerned. We all acknowledge that we live in not only one of the finest cities in Australia but one of the finest cities in the world, because of its environment. That attraction, and the attraction of the parks surrounding the ACT, is an asset which we believe the industry and the Government should be looking at allowing to be appropriately exploited. "Exploitation" is a word often used in relation to the environment; but there needs to be discussion between the groups that have been outlined to allow, without vandalism occurring to our natural environment because of hordes of tramping feet, for the natural environment in the ACT to be shown off to people not only within the ACT but in Australia.
I also would draw the Assembly's attention to recommendation 11.5 in the summary of conclusions. There will always be debate about how the Tourism Commission and tourism promotion are funded in the ACT. A range of suggestions have been put forward by groups of people over the last number of years. One was a bed tax. That was rejected by the industry as being iniquitous. There were a number of other suggestions put up, such as a loo tax.
Mr Humphries: Do you reject it?
MR LAMONT: It was also rejected by a number of people within the industry.
Mr Humphries: And you?
MR LAMONT: Myself? This is a summary of conclusions. In this report we put out a range of options for discussion. We believe that this is a matter which needs final consideration. I would certainly be hoping that, when we consider our final report, the committee may be in a position to come down with a recommendation about those matters.
Mr De Domenico: In fact, the Chief Minister ruled it out last year.
MR LAMONT: The Chief Minister, the Minister for tourism, as Mr De Domenico has indicated, did rule it out last year. The industry also ruled it out and I think that is important. A number of other suggestions have been put. One was a loo tax - a tax based on the number of loos you have in commercial premises, et cetera. That was not something which was specifically canvassed by the committee, but I am aware that there was such a proposition floating at some time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .