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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2830 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

the paper, I think ACTCOSS has assumed that there is going to be a significant increase in revenue as the result of it. The fact is that the counterbalancing effects of the reduction of tourism, the numbers of tourists, the reduction in the business turnover in tourism, would probably result in a net loss in revenue to the ACT Government, not a gain.

I think the other error in the ACTCOSS position is that they seem to assume that if we were to impose a new tax and generate new revenue that new revenue would be spent on things that they think are important. In fact, that would not occur. Through the budgetary process the Government has to determine its priorities as to where the available money goes, and it probably would not benefit the things that ACTCOSS have in mind anyway.

Mr Speaker, I would hope that the Labor Party, with their new directions and their emphasis on jobs and the like, would join with the Government in the fact that we stand for the growth of small business in the Territory. We have already stated unequivocally that a bed tax or any other such discriminatory tax will not be imposed or implemented in the Territory. I would ask the Labor Party to confirm that they will not do such a ridiculous thing either.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, in recommendation 103 of the Wallis report relating to the creation of what will be known as the APRC, the Australian Prudential Regulation Commission, and the CFSC, the Corporations and Financial Services Commission, it is suggested, indeed recommended, that these bodies should not be located in Canberra. The Insurance and Superannuation Commission, due to be taken over by the CFSC, currently employs about 400 to 450 people, about 250 of those being in the ACT. Under the recommendation from Wallis, these 250 jobs would be lost to Canberra. What steps has the Chief Minister taken so far, or what steps will the Chief Minister take, to ensure that her preferred Prime Minister, the Prime Minister she voted for, John Howard, does not take another 250 jobs out of the ACT?

MRS CARNELL: I thank Mr Corbell for the dorothy dixer because it was one we thought we might ask ourselves. Mr Speaker, we are very disappointed with any thought that these jobs or this office may relocate to Sydney. I understand that at this stage a decision has not been taken to do that, although I do understand that there has been some discussion about a possible relocation. When that became a rumour in the first instance, quite a few months ago, I immediately spoke to the Prime Minister about this issue. I raised it in a number of forums, Mr Speaker, and made it very clear that the ACT would be extremely unhappy if this happened, as it would be very counterproductive for Canberra at this time. I understand that the employees, as well, are less than happy about a move to Sydney, and I can understand that. They obviously like living in Canberra.

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