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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2098 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Under the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation Act, the Minister still has to approve every decision that that corporation makes. He - or she in the future, maybe - is still the person responsible for the operation of the organisation. He still has to approve all of the decisions of the organisation, as he did under the old regime of Canberra Tourism. So, on that front at least, there is not much difference.

There is not much difference either in the so-called ability of the new Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation to raise funds and to enter into joint arrangements with private sector operators. As this Government has acknowledged, that could have been done also under the existing framework, with Canberra Tourism. So, the development of the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation has not created any new ability in that respect either. Mr Speaker, on these two points alone, we can see that the Government seems to think that, if you can put in a new name for an organisation, it looks like you are doing something; but the reality is quite different.

There are some other aspects of the tourism budget this year which I would like to comment on. The first is the development of the Visitor Information Centre. We have seen the building go up on Northbourne Avenue. Again, to the extent to which it provides a new and modern face to Canberra Tourism, that is to be welcomed, and we welcome that. But we would again question the priorities of this Government when it says that it is better to put the money into building that centre - which, I understand, is around $1m - than to put it into getting the people here. A lot of tourism operators have said to me, "What is the point of having a brand new Visitor Information Centre if there are no visitors to use it?". Clearly, it is not as black and white as that; but the point remains: In an era when we see declining visitor numbers coming into Canberra and declining occupancy levels and takings, should the priority not be better promotion? On this side of the chamber, we would say, "Yes, that should be the priority".

Mr Speaker, the Government has also said a lot about its new events prospecting scheme - $350,000 to attract events to Canberra. All I can say about this proposal is that I think the money would have been far better spent on the promotion and marketing side of it. What this Government is really trying to do is a Jeff Kennett.

Mrs Carnell: That is right.

MR CORBELL: The Chief Minister says, "Yes, that is right". I am glad that you are admitting that you are trying to do a Jeff Kennett. I think what we would all say about Jeff Kennett, even though we may not agree with his politics - and I certainly do not - is that, when Jeff Kennett does it, he actually commits to doing it properly. But this Government cannot even do that. Look at the $350,000 that it has put into the events prospecting fund. That is not going to attract very many events. It is not a serious attempt at attracting events to Canberra. It is a token attempt, just as changing the name to the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation was a token attempt. So, again, on that, the Labor Party would criticise - I think, quite reasonably - the approach of the Government.

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