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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3447 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Inevitably, in business incentive areas, there will be winners. There will be successes and areas where we were not successful. As members will know, the Coms 21 situation was subject to aggressive takeover and it has caused some significant problems for the Canberra operation. There is no doubt about that at all. But in many other areas the jobs that have been created have been quite stunning.

When you look at the facts, we now have an all time record number of jobs in the ACT - over 162,000 jobs. That is more than we have ever had before, Mr Speaker. As well as that, our unemployment rate is 5.6 per cent. That is lower than it ever was under those opposite ever, and it is the lowest it has been for some nine years. All of those dire predictions from those opposite, when the Commonwealth outsourced, about all of the jobs leaving Canberra have not happened. Why have they not happened? It is because we have given business incentives, certainly to companies that were not little, to encourage them to stay in Canberra, to employ in Canberra, and to ensure that outsourced jobs do not leave our city.

I have to say I am proud of that. It is something that this Government set out to achieve and it is something that has been extraordinarily successful. The fact is, Mr Speaker, that our unemployment rate is lower than that of any State in this country. Our growth rate, at 5.2 per cent, is one percentage point higher than the Australian average. Nobody can see that as being anything but a total success.

MR QUINLAN: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Is the Chief Minister happy to stand behind the $36.2m total tax breaks promised to EDS, an international firm with a turnover larger than the entire ACT, particularly as EDS would have had to increase its presence in the Territory to serve its Federal government contracts, particularly Taxation? She might, while she is on her feet, consider defending the 10-year payroll tax break for that little firm IBM Global Systems, or the $3.5m tax break to BHP IT, given that they also are involved in Federal government IT contracts.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, those opposite cannot have it both ways, and they try to all the time. They have said to us, "Shock, horror, the Government has to do something to stop these jobs leaving Canberra". If EDS or BHP IT or CSR, or whoever, pick up government outsourced contracts, they can service them from anywhere in this country, or, potentially, anywhere in the world. They do not have to be here in the ACT. Most of these business incentive packages have gone to IT companies simply because, I suppose, they are so transportable. They can service from anywhere.

It is certainly true that when we started the business incentive scheme back at the beginning of our first term in government we did use cash grants. That has changed, Mr Speaker. Now, as members will be well aware because we have answered heaps of questions on it in estimates, the vast percentage of our business incentive grants is in the area of payroll tax exemptions, and companies do not get them unless they put on the staff. It is quite simple. If they do not put on the staff they do not get the tax break, and therefore it is absolutely a no lose situation for this city. In other words, we are saying to big companies, "Come to the ACT. We will reduce your employment costs for a limited period. We do not have buckets of money to give you like other States have been giving you, but we can reduce your employment costs. We can give you an opportunity to deal

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