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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1191 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The management of these operations could be undertaken from a number of airports. However, we know that the Capital Airport Group have been anxious to set up new aircraft operations at the airport to boost its commercial viability ever since they bought the airport. They have been pushing the idea of a regional hub for some time so that more aircraft movement is channelled through Canberra. It is to be expected that the airport would want to expand its business, but I question the role of the ACT Government in this regard. I thought the whole point of privatising the airports in Australia was to allow them to run on supposedly more efficient commercial lines, free of government interference, with their future being determined by market forces, yet here the ACT Government is stepping in to help the Capital Airports Group by securing the establishment of Impulse Airlines at the airport.

In spending its limited budget, the Government should not be trying to pick business winners; it should be spending the taxpayers' money on what is in the broader public interest. It is not enough for the Government to say that there will be all these economic benefits from the Impulse move. I am sure that similar statements were made when previous governments entered into the establishment of the hotel school and CanDeliver and the development of Bruce Stadium and Harcourt Hill Estate which were subsequently proved to be wrong.

I think that this Assembly should expect a much more thorough analysis of these types of proposals than the few weeks that the Government spent before it made its decision to proceed with the statement of intent. That is particularly so when it is admitted in the analysis of the proposal that Ansett and Qantas airlines dominate the domestic air transport market and that, historically, there has been extreme difficulty for new players entering this market. Impulse Airlines think they can overcome this risk and have secured commercial financial backing, which is their prerogative as a private business. There may be broader economic benefits to Australia from breaking up this duopoly, and I wish Impulse good luck in this endeavour. (Extension of time granted) But I believe that breaking up this duopoly is an issue for all governments in Australia to address and not one for the ACT Government to go out on a limb and risk taxpayers' money in one company's attempt to break this duopoly.

The speed at which this proposal has been developed is reflected in the statement of intent, which is an extremely loose and uneven document. For example, the statement refers to Impulse commencing various operations, but there are no definitions of what actually will be commenced and how long a particular operation has to be in place before it receives a credit on the $8m capital injection. In some areas there are no clear indicators to determine whether Impulse is complying with the agreement. For example, it says that Impulse will merely support - note the language, support - the development of an aviation centre of excellence, that it will investigate new routes and that it will use its best endeavours to obtain a performance guaranteed to support its commitments. The specifications for the facilities are being supplied directly from Impulse without independent checking, so we cannot be sure that what we think will be built actually will be built.

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