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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2865 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

This Government, Madam Deputy Speaker, has identified in the budget an initiative designed to promote the many facets of Canberra in a coordinated and cooperative manner. This is the first time that an ACT government has taken an integrated approach to funding the marketing of Canberra as an attractive tourism, business, sporting and cultural destination. It has never been done before, and certainly not under the Labor Party. Mr Corbell quite obviously still fails to understand that these four fields of activity, while being separate and distinct, are interrelated. As the Chief Minister has pointed out in her speech, the broad nature of the promotional campaign is such that the administrative responsibility clearly sits with the Department of Business, the Arts, Sport and Tourism because it covers all of those areas of responsibility. If it were totally devoted to tourism, I would have argued for it to be managed by Tourism; but it was not and it is not.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me at the outset rebut the three spurious claims inherent in Mr Corbell's motion. First, Mr Corbell claims that I made a commitment to industry representatives of an additional $1m towards tourism. This grossly misrepresents the context of my statement. I quote from an article by Peter Clack which reports my statement quite accurately. In that article I am reported as having said:

I am foreshadowing a substantial injection of Government funds for marketing and the amount being considered is understood to be up to $1m.

That was written by Peter Clack. He was there and he reported what I said, and he reported it accurately, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made it quite clear at the time, and Mr Clack reported that too, that the amount of funding to go to tourism was dependent upon industry funding, with the Government matching that on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

I made this statement whilst the budget discussions were under way and clearly, as a result of the budgetary process, the Government has delivered $500,000 and the potential is there for this amount to be matched in some manner by the private sector. In other words, Madam Deputy Speaker, I delivered what I said I would deliver - up to $1m but with Government money being matched by the private sector on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Now, $500,000 of Government money matched by $500,000 of private sector money is $1m. The potential is there for the private sector to match us dollar for dollar and to achieve what I said was the target. So the implication in Mr Corbell's motion that I promised $1m for tourism is totally untrue.

Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not agree with Mr Corbell that the Tourism and Events Corporation is best placed to administer this allocation of money, because that proposition is simply untenable.

Mr Corbell: That is not what you said in the speech on the Tourism and Events Corporation.

MR KAINE: Mr Corbell does not want to hear the facts. He had his say and now he wants to keep talking while I am rebutting what he said.

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