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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2105 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

He had absolutely no idea. When we raised it with him, the Minister seemed completely dismissive of it. I think this is a ringing indictment of this Minister for the failure to address the concerns of his own chief executive, and it is a ringing indictment of the chief executive for the lack of confidence in his Minister that he would rather write to the head of the Canberra Business Council than to his Minister. What an absolute farce that was!

The last point I want to make is about the continuing fall in tourism takings and occupancy levels in this town. Month after month we have seen occupancy levels fall and we have seen takings rise by only the most marginal of levels, between $3 and $6. That is not much at all when you are a struggling operator in the tourism industry. This Minister seems to think that changing the name of Canberra Tourism to the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation addresses the problem. It clearly does not.

The Minister made a point about me not making any positive contribution. In my speech I identified three areas where the Government could look at its priorities again. Is it worth spending $350,000 on an events marketing unit? Would it not be better putting that into a general pool for promotion of Canberra generally? That is one contribution.

Mrs Carnell: It was Rosemary Follett's policy to have an events corporation.

MR CORBELL: You do not have to agree with it, Chief Minister, but I am addressing the Minister's point about making suggestions. That was one. Another was that half a million dollars was allocated for promoting Canberra but not given to Canberra Tourism. Why not give it to Canberra Tourism?

Mrs Carnell: They can have it, or some of it.

MR CORBELL: The Chief Minister says that they can have it. Okay, put it in there, Chief Minister. I do not think you will. You will keep it in the Department of Business. I can see you doing that now. Again, that suggests to me that there is some lack of confidence in Canberra Tourism's ability to promote. Otherwise, you would give it to them. It is about priorities. It is about where you spend the money. It is about how you spend the money to get the best result. All I can say about this Government's approach is that it is muddle-headed. They cannot criticise this Opposition for not putting forward some alternatives.

MS TUCKER (4.21): I will make a few comments about tourism. I have already spoken on the topic, so I will not go on for very long. I am still concerned that there has had to be pressure from us to bring the environment into the discussion on tourism. I think it is absolutely critical that it be an underlying issue, because tourism will not be sustainable if we do not look at the environmental implications of whatever activities we have in our community in the ACT. We have the concept of nature-based tourism and we have the concept of ecotourism. Sometimes there is some confusion about what those terms mean. When we look at places such as Namadgi and Tidbinbilla we have a fairly clear idea of how to keep them sustainable, but I am also interested to see the Government take a more proactive approach to addressing the ecological impact of all activities relating to tourism in the ACT.

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