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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2097 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

practice, nobody seemed to know. That shows the community that the Government has no interest in occupational health and safety matters. It is about the bottom line driving everything. It is not about looking after the interests of working people.

That was in relation to tobacco. You would think that, because we have a Health Minister in charge as Chief Minister, there would be some interest in these issues. I think the Government's performance generally on the issue of tobacco consumption has demonstrated that the community can forget any real response from the Government in relation to tobacco. It is certainly not interested in the code of practice for a smoke-free workplace out there in the small business community. Mr Speaker, this Government has an appalling performance on industrial relations. In particular, its leader, Mrs Carnell, has an appalling performance on the issue of industrial relations. Her performance on industrial relations, Mr Speaker, would be better suited to the stage.

MR CORBELL (3.47): Mr Speaker, I would like to speak on the tourism area of this part of the budget. The first criticism I want to make of the Government's approach to tourism is this: This Government has said a lot about tourism. It has tried to demonstrate that it is doing a lot about tourism. But, when you come down to it, a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. A lot of it is smoke and mirrors when you look at the development of the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation. The development of the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation shows that this Government thinks that, if it changes the name of an organisation and makes it look more like a business, then it must be doing something positive for tourism. In the end, the Labor Party supported the development of the corporation because, to the extent to which it gave confidence to the tourism industry in this city, that was to be welcomed. We certainly did not want to get in the way of something that would give greater confidence to an industry which is suffering.

The tourism industry in Canberra is suffering; there is no doubt about that. Since the 1996 Federal election, with John Howard's decision not to live here in Canberra, we have seen a dramatic drop in the number of people coming to Canberra, particularly for business. So, I guess, in that sector of the tourism market - visitors coming to our city for business - there has been a dramatic drop. David Marshall, the head of Canberra Tourism, will tell you exactly the same thing. It has done enormous damage to our city. So, to the extent to which the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation has provided confidence to an industry which has taken a battering, we welcome it. But we welcome it with a degree of cynicism, because the Government seems to be suggesting that, with the creation of this new organisation, all of a sudden, all of the problems with tourism in Canberra are going to be effectively and fundamentally addressed; that this organisation is going to be able to do new things which Canberra Tourism could not do.

The reality is something quite different. The reality is that the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation will do all of the things that the old Canberra Tourism used to do. It will not have any new functions. What it will have that is new is the putting in place of a board of management. But, with this board of management, you would think that this is a corporation that is going to operate as a business, that is going to be responsible for its own decisions, and so on and so forth. Again, the reality is quite different.

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