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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1446 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

a receding economy, there is no indication of any strategic approach to the issue in this budget.

The government's decision to lift the payroll tax threshold puts the ACT in a pre-eminent position nationally. The ACT tax-free threshold, at $1.5 million from July 2000, will be Australia's highest. But is lifting the threshold the most efficient way to address the issue? Lifting the threshold narrows the taxation base, whereas cutting the rate would broaden the base and advantage more small businesses. Business taxation in the ACT is already among the nation's highest, as the Commonwealth Grants Commission attests. Yet there is no sign in this budget that the Liberal government is prepared to address the issue.

Professor Brailsford yesterday sounded the alarm. In terms of support for business, this budget, he said, is one of lost opportunity. Those are the words of the dean of the faculty of economics at the ANU. The budget represents a lost opportunity for the business and community sector. Economic circumstances presented the government with an opportunity to do more, to stimulate business development and to attract new business, but it has not done that.

There is no indication of an industrial development strategy, nothing more than this government's tired dependence on its business incentives scheme, the scheme that brought us the Impulse Airlines deal to achieve milestones that now look considerably distant.

Similarly, the government missed another business opportunity in this budget in regard to the tourism sector. Sure, there is money-money for CTEC, money for the Convention Bureau and money for destination marketing. But there is no money for what the industry has been calling for, no money for industry's primary objective-implementation of a tourism master plan. The government instead maintains its fixation with events, in the sure certainty that there are more photo opportunities in car races than there are in strategic plans. Again, the government is more concerned with the short term, not the strategic vision. That is just too hard for this government.

Mr Speaker, in many ways this budget can be characterised as a catch-up budget. The capital works program catches up on infrastructure maintenance left neglected. Community safety initiatives try to catch up on falling comparisons with national averages. Education initiatives are too little, too late. As they are formulated in this budget, they will not allow the territory to regain its pre-eminent position nationally. Even the centrepiece-the free school buses-has a capital component to catch up on the bus replacement program the government has let run down.

Mr Speaker, it has to be said: the budget in many respects plays catch-up with Labor. There is, for instance, funding for e-commerce export action plans, a need identified by Labor and articulated months ago. I have already committed Labor to funding extra police and to restoring education quality and funding, although Labor's priorities may have been different.

Just over a week ago my colleague Bill Wood delivered a paper addressing service delivery to attack poverty and disadvantage. In this respect, yesterday's budget was in many respects a case of deja vu. Labor committed to an audit to identify the extent of

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