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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1264 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

On the ACT business incentive scheme, let us have a look at how well this Government is spending money on what they call creating jobs. The budget papers say that $37m is expected to create 700 jobs.

Mrs Carnell: That is this year.

MR CORBELL: That is right. That is this year. That works out at just over $50,000 a job. That is a lot of money for a job. That is a hell of a lot of money for a job.

Mrs Carnell: We have not spent it all yet.

MR CORBELL: It is $50,000 for a job. The Chief Minister says that they have not spent it all yet. Let us hope it goes down. Let us hope that it is not just one enormous subsidy to business that is not really creating many jobs. That is the impression at the moment. Another $180m is for 2,000 jobs. I estimate that at $94,000 a job. It is really going up. Again, is this a business incentive scheme that is designed to create jobs or is it an enormous subsidy to industry?

On this point I would like to mention something that Mr Hird mentioned in the debate earlier about the Economic Development Committee's recent visit to Christchurch. We said to every business we spoke to in Christchurch, "Do you think it is worth while having a scheme that provides subsidies, grants of land and concessions in tax to attract businesses to your city?". Mr Hird knows that they said, overwhelmingly, "No, do not do it. It is a waste of money". Mr Hird, I know, agrees with me on this point. Do not throw money outside your city. Build on what you have. That is not the approach of this Government. It is very sad.

It is quite clear that this budget does not address the issue of jobs; it does not address the issue of economic development. If it did, this Government would be honest about the $4.5m they claim is in the Jobs Fund. It is not really $4.5m. On estimates so far, it is probably closer to $2m. That $2m is to be welcomed, but for this Government to claim that it is a major new incentive is completely wrong. What we need instead is a strategic approach. What we need instead is an approach which says, "Build on our strengths, reward those people who are already here, create the jobs and create the complementary industries around the industries we already have. Do not throw money interstate. Leave it here. Build it here. Make the investment here". That is what this Government is failing to do and that is why this budget is a failure.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.37), in reply: It has been a very long and tedious debate, and I think tragic. It is tragic because when I get up now it is very hard to find something to speak about. Those opposite have not put any ideas forward. Obviously, the media felt the same way, because the enormous reporting that Mr Whitecross managed to get on his budget speech really shows that no-one could think of anything to say about the budget. I think that was very appropriate.

Mr Speaker, the things that I need to say a few words about are the things that people opposite got wrong in their speeches. There are too many to speak about in the time I have, so I will run through the major ones. Mr Speaker, I think the tragic thing about Mr Whitecross's speech was that there was no alternative budget, there was no

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