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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1986 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

infrastructure, to make it a far more attractive terminal than it once was and to attract more business. This has been achieved only because a long-term investor provided the stability needed to take the long-term view in the development of the airport. That is a lesson that we can learn from the Christchurch City Council and their ownership of Christchurch International Airport.

Christchurch International Airport now has direct flights from Sydney, Singapore, Brisbane and other places. These are aims that our own Government here in the ACT, the Liberal Government, has announced it would like to see as desirable for Canberra Airport. I would draw to the Government's attention the valuable lesson we can learn from Christchurch on this point: Some form of public control or ownership is valuable in providing stability and long-term strategic direction for the development of an important economic asset like an airport. Perhaps the third most important asset which Christchurch City Council owns is the Lyttelton Port Co. This is perhaps of less relevance to us here in Canberra, but again it demonstrates the importance of strategic control in implementing economic development policies which benefit the entire community.

Mr Speaker, there is one other point I would like to make in relation to the Economic Development and Tourism Committee's visit to Christchurch, and that is in the area of business assistance. Everywhere we went in Christchurch, every person we spoke to, no matter whom they represented, said to us that providing incentives, financial or otherwise, to encourage businesses to come to their city was a misleading and inappropriate policy. They said this because it meant getting into bidding wars. They said this because it meant throwing money at companies that may not have the best interests of their city at heart. I am glad you are paying attention to this, Mr Speaker, because it is very important. People said to us that if you provide business incentives for businesses to come to a city the only businesses you are going to attract are ones who will move elsewhere when they get a better offer, which has been their experience, or it will mean you attract businesses that perhaps can be viable only because they get some form of financial assistance.

Are those the sorts of businesses we want to attract? They said to us, "We do not want to attract businesses like that. We want to attract businesses to our city on our city's merits". They said to us, "Our city has wonderful advantages. Our city has a great outdoor lifestyle, like Canberra. Our city has an attractive residential environment, like Canberra. Our city has a highly educated work force, like Canberra". Because it had all of those things, those were the assets on which they sold their city for businesses to come to them, and when the businesses came to Christchurch they gave them every assistance possible to make sure that they succeeded. That is where you see the Canterbury Development Corporation, which Mr Hird mentioned earlier, Mr Speaker, come into effect; but all the programs that that organisation runs are free to business. Mentoring advice, assistance in management of the business, assistance with employing people, all those things, all those assets, all those advantages, are delivered free of charge once the business has arrived.

I think what I learnt from my visit to Christchurch is that you have a far stronger case when you go to someone and you say, "Our city stands on its own two feet. We believe in what our city is about. We believe in the capability of our city. We want you to come here"; not that we can give them $10,000 and a block of land.

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