Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (8 April) . . Page.. 661 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

To the extent that this Bill gives greater confidence to the tourism industry in Canberra, it is to be welcomed, because if there is one thing that the tourism industry in Canberra needs at the moment it is confidence. It needs confidence in its ability to promote our city as the national capital and as an attractive destination for visitors. But I am afraid that that is really all this Bill does. The Bill will create a corporation which will still be a line item in the budget; it will still be receiving direct funding from the budget; it will still be requiring the Minister to approve all the decisions made by the corporation's board; and it will be entering into joint ventures, which it can enter into now.

I guess, in summary, that what this Bill achieves is some window-dressing for the Carnell Government. It achieves window-dressing in that it is able to go to the industry and say, "Look at what we are doing for the tourism sector". I think most operators in the tourism sector, if they were really honest with themselves, would say - and I am sure that most people in this Assembly would agree - that what is really needed in Canberra is better promotion and better marketing of our city. I go and talk to operators in the tourism sector around town, and I say, "How is business going?". They tell me, "There are just not enough visitors coming through the door. There are just not enough people coming to Canberra". This corporation Bill does not resolve that problem at all. What will resolve that problem is a far stronger and definite commitment from the Government for the funding of the promotion and marketing of Canberra interstate and overseas.

At the moment, this Government spends just over $2m on marketing and promotion, out of a total budget of just over $5m. The Commonwealth Grants Commission recommends that the ACT, on standardised expenditure, spend $71/2m for the support of the tourism industry and tourism-related activities in Canberra. We spend less than what is recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which is not a particularly generous body when it comes to giving out money or recommending what should be spent. In comparison with other States and Territories, we perform poorly. In fact, we are at the bottom of the list. Let us look at Tasmania. Tasmania spends, I think, $18m or $19m a year on its tourism body and it spends a significant amount of that on marketing. The success is measured when you look at how popular Tasmania is as a tourism destination. It is a State with only a slightly larger population than the ACT and, you would then guess, only a slightly larger revenue raising capacity than the ACT.

Mr Humphries: So, where do we get the money to spend extra on tourism?

MR CORBELL: Mr Humphries suggests that we have to deal with the issue of where the money comes from.

Mr Wood: You have to spend it to get it.

MR CORBELL: There are opportunities for looking at where you get the money from. It requires a joint effort between the industry and the Government. But it means getting your priorities right, and this Government is not getting its priorities right when it comes to expenditure.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .