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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4250 ..

Mr Whitecross: I do not think you impressed him, either.

MRS LITTLEWOOD: I am pleased that I did not, because, if I had to base my life on impressing people like that, I would rather not be impressing anybody. I could call the man a crook, but I will not.

Paragraph 6.15 is also misleading because it cites with approval the criticism of a grant recipient that the BIS is directed to high technology industries, to the apparent exclusion of others. However, the majority report lacks balance because it then fails to point out what committee members know - that there are many other suitable industries, including financial and business services, health care, personal services, media, recreation, tourism and so on. The latter part of paragraph 6.15 is an example of a contradiction inherent in the report, namely, the call for greater scrutiny of applications in some parts of the report against the criticism of too much detail being required and too much time being taken for assessment in other parts. It was not resolved. Recommendation 6 sits very oddly with the recommendations that it go back to the Assembly next time round. I do not believe that it should; I really do not.

From the text leading up to recommendation 8, it is apparent that a change in the form of assistance is envisaged after approval has been given. The arguments are not well canvassed, but the proposal seems to open the scope for continuing intervention and increasing dependency by recipient firms. That prospect may sit well with the majority of the committee, but it is not the economic environment in which firms become competitive and create a sound basis for employment growth. Therefore, I do not support that recommendation.

Mr Speaker, I think it fair to say that there have been a few comments made about those working within the department in this area. From my experience and my dealings and from feedback from other people, the people in the department have done very well. The department might not have a 100 per cent strike rate; but, by crikey, they have not done too badly, either. COMS21 and Modernfold come to mind. I think they are to be congratulated for what they have done, and I think the department is to be congratulated as well.

It has also been mentioned that the public servants working in this area do not have the necessary background and business experience. I would just like to point out that that is not the case. In doing so, I would like to wish one of the members of that area well as he is about to take up a position elsewhere as the general manager of Sir Laurence Street's new company. If he did not have the background experience in business, he would not have been offered that job. To suggest that there is a lack of expertise is not exactly correct. There may not be as many people as you would like with the expertise that you want, but there are certainly people with expertise who know what they are doing.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I say again that I think it is rather sad that we do get down to point-scoring, particularly with something as important as this, because we do need to encourage people and business in this Territory if the Territory is to survive. Mr Speaker, I cannot support the report as it is.

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