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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2894 ..

Mr Humphries: But, Mr Speaker, the point is not to review the Hansard; it is to decide on whether the word "harlot" is unparliamentary. Doing so now, as I am sure that you are more than capable of doing, avoids the need to proceed with this matter at all.

MR SPEAKER: Very well. As far as I am concerned, the use of the word "harlot", in the terms in which it was used, is unparliamentary. That is my ruling, and I would remind all members about it. There was a discussion about it being a profession, as I recall. There are several other terms ruled as being unparliamentary that refer to professions, including "thug", "leader of the Gestapo", "stormtrooper" and "second-rate lawyer". The word "harlot", therefore, falls into that category, and there are now five professions, or employments, that are unparliamentary when used in the wrong terms.

MR WHITECROSS (11.36): Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts inquire into and report, by 2 December 1997, on the efficiency and effectiveness, since 1 March 1995, of the Industry Assistance Program and its successor, the Business Incentive Scheme.

These schemes involve a significant outlay on behalf of the community in direct cash - several million dollars over the life of the schemes - and indirectly through revenue forgone from stamp duties, payroll tax, the sale of land and rent on government-owned properties. The total cost of these schemes is therefore something which ought to be of interest to the community. However, the exact cost of the schemes is unknown, because the terms of the deals made with individual companies have never been really looked at. The schemes have operated for a number of years under both the previous Government and the current Government, and it is appropriate that we now look at their efficiency and effectiveness, at whether the economic and employment benefits have been realised and at whether there are better ways of directing resources to promote economic and employment growth in the ACT.

Over recent times the Government has made some fairly strong claims about the success of the business incentive scheme. The Chief Minister and Minister for Business recently indicated that deals she had done in the last financial year had brought $31m of investment to the ACT and 360 jobs. She claimed that work under way was going to bring $180m of investment to the ACT and 2,000 jobs. Some very high profile companies and some very large companies have been assisted under the business incentive scheme, including Olivetti, AOFR, Fujitsu, Coms21, Diskdeed, Sustainable Technologies Australia, Pacific Noise and Vibration, Modernfold and Micro Forte, just to name some.

I believe that, as an Assembly and as a community, we should be doing all we can to encourage private sector investment and growth. We ought to be trying to build a strong and vibrant economy, a mixed economy with a strong, healthy, well-regarded and effective public sector and a strong, vibrant, healthy and well-respected private sector.

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