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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2918 ..

You can hide behind the excuse that this is because a couple of elections are to be held. It is true that in the lead-up to elections things go a bit quiet. But I think there is more to it this time, simply because you cannot hide behind the fact that the industrial relations regime that this government wants to put in place is patently anti-business.

The small business programs that have resulted from the economic white paper are worthy of some scrutiny. Because there are no definitive timelines or targets in the white paper and because the document is so airy-fairy and motherhood, the funds that we see are very broad and are very lacking in detail as to what they will do. When you ask where the innovation is or where growth will come from, there is nothing to indicate that the minister for business actually knows the answers.

I want to contrast that with Creative Canberra, where we have actually nominated the industries. And let us remember that we nominated these industries well before the white paper was released. The other day the Treasurer was talking about how we were copying the government in supporting defence as an industry. We had our paper out a full two months before they had theirs out, so if anybody is copying or anybody came afterwards, it is the Treasurer who is always lagging.

The point is you have got to put more detail into what you want to do and that is what we will outline between now and the election. The government has had 2½ years to come up with an economic white paper at a cost of $600,000 worth of consultancies and probably the same amount again—more than a million dollars if you take into account the time of staff. In the interim, it probably cost us a chief executive of the Chief Minister’s Department, who could not get through the original draft of the white paper, which I understand was quite spectacular and had a lot of support from the business community. Instead, we got the damp squib that is the document delivered last year.

So it is not only just talking the talk, it is walking the walk; it is having the drive to do something and it is having the drive to make it happen. I think you can see that this is a damp squib of a budget for business because this is not a government that is interested in business at all.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming, and Acting Minister for Planning) (5.35): Mr Deputy Speaker, it will be a long night if we are going to get that sort of repetition on every single line. I want to respond to some of the things that Mr Smyth has said and, although I do not usually like to do so, I must engage in a little bit of tit for tat.

I have got to say that what I have seen come out of the Liberal Party in respect of policy is thin in the extreme and has absolutely no substance. I was present at a budget breakfast at which Mr Smyth spoke. When Mr Smyth started talking about Creative Canberra, someone asked him the obvious question, “What’s that? What’s in it?” Groping for an answer, he mentioned the fashion industry as his specific example. I am sure that some sort of authoritative study will demonstrate that there will be a huge fillip to the ACT economy as we leap into the fashion industry! But I have to say it was one of those moments. We were up the front of the stage, and looking down at the audience there was a sea of faces that sort of had that just passing “what the?” look. I think that summed up the way that policy would go over.

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