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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1195 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

perspective to go to one of the cities into which it is going to fly its jets in the first instance. If we took Ms Tucker's approach, what would happen is that Impulse would set up its operational headquarters and its engineering and heavy maintenance facilities in one of the other capital cities and any expansion for the ACT would be a long way down the track and possibly not based upon a regional hub but just additional services. Hopefully, that answers Ms Tucker's question on why the ACT is in the business of providing a financial incentive for Impulse Airlines to come to the ACT. Of course, it is also the case that other governments in areas that Impulse might be looking at setting up those headquarters are more than happy to come to the party with a few dollars, and we need to compete with that.

I would like to finish with a couple of comments about matters that were raised by members of the Opposition. The first one is the issue of timeframes and how - shock, horror - we cannot handle them. Recently, I had the pleasure of going to the innovations summit in Melbourne. One of the things coming out of that summit that was quite clear to everybody there is that the days when any government has months or years to make decisions on anything are simply gone. For those opposite, particularly Mr Quinlan, who have supported Canberra being a knowledge-based economy and have supported R&D funding, the timeframe that we will have for making a decision on research and development, communications, IT and, for that matter, these sorts of proposals will be a maximum of six weeks. If we do not make an R&D decision in a six-week timeframe, it will be too late. Mr Quinlan knows that and I know that, so the days of those opposite whingeing about timeframes simply have to be over.

Mr Quinlan: If we are going to be a knowledge-based economy, how about giving us some real knowledge along the way?

MS CARNELL: I agree that the information needs to be on the table and it was, all of it. But you cannot keep saying that we do not have time. We will simply miss the boat, not just in this situation but in many that are on the horizon right now for this Government. The good part about Canberra's form of government is that it should be able to move quicker than larger governments in bigger States. That gives us a real capacity to compete with larger entities that are less flexible and have less capacity to make quick decisions. So, we have to stop bellyaching in this place about actually having to make a decision in a decent timeframe.

Mr Berry ran through a whole heap of negatives, saying that they are the reason the Opposition really cannot trust the Government. He made a comment out Fujitsu. Fujitsu currently has 250 employees and is looking at putting on another 80 in the next few months. Mr Speaker, we would not have those 300-odd employees but for Fujitsu setting up their Asia-Pacific headquarters here. Those opposite have just done exactly what they always do. They comment that 300 is not 900. No, it is not because the timeframe on the agreement has not been reached yet.

Mr Speaker, they also make comments about EDS, IBM GS and others. EDS and, I think, IBM are actually tracking above their current projections. In fact, the business incentive scheme has so far produced over 1,200 full- and part-time jobs. I do not see that as a negative; I am sorry. I look at that as a real positive. And what has it produced?

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