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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1394 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the proposals, such as the noise impact from increased flights into and out of the airport, or the broader economic impact, such as whether the ACT is achieving an economic gain at some other region's expense.

Concerns have also been raised about whether this development will make the very fast train to Sydney less viable. I was also concerned that the government's economic analysis did not look in any detail at the actual expansion prospects of Impulse in the interstate airline market. The Access Economics report commissioned by the government stresses that they took the statements in the Impulse business plan regarding the establishment of Boeing 717 operations at face value. Given the previous failed attempts to break the Qantas and Ansett stranglehold on the market, and the coming entry of Virgin Airlines into the Australian market, Impulse's predictions of its expansion may not be a rosy as they think. I do recall that in one of the reports risk was acknowledged.

I also pointed out in that debate that while I respect the right of Impulse Airlines to make its own commercial decisions, I questioned the need for the ACT government to intervene so heavily in what really should be a commercial arrangement between the Capital Airport Group and Impulse. The Capital Airport Group, as the monopoly holder of airport runway facilities in Canberra, will receive the primary benefit of Impulse Airline's move. So this government assistance is not just to Impulse but also indirectly to the Capital Airport Group. If that is what the government wanted to do and if they think the airport people think they paid too much and they need to help them or whatever, well, let us be open about that. That would be much more satisfying.

If Impulse Airlines is such a vibrant, expanding business, why don't we provide loan funding which can be paid back later after their move is successful rather than just give them the cash to keep? I also question the nature of financial assistance to industry more generally, which was backed up by an Industry Commission inquiry into state, territory and local government assistance to industry completed in 1996. The inquiry found that selective industry assistance involving state and local government rivalry for economic development adds little, if anything, to aggregate investment and employment, involves a costly transfer of funds from taxpayers and ratepayers to selected businesses, and can result in a misallocation of resources which is actually harmful to economic growth.

I also raised concerns about inconsistencies between statements in the statement of intent and the ACIL report where it was claimed that particular infrastructure projects were going to be managed by the airport and then, in the statement of intent, responsibility was going to be taken by Impulse. These inconsistencies were also of concern. I know the government was claiming that they were being incredibly open about it, but they did not actually answer those questions which I raised.

So, basically, yes, in terms of Mr Hird's matter of public importance, there is certainly a significance in Impulse Airlines establishing its operations in Canberra, and the Greens, of course, also wish it well because we have just invested a large amount of taxpayers' money. We would have wished Impulse well anyway. It is particularly important now that we have invested such a significant amount of money into the private sector once again.

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