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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2004) . . Page.. 3024 ..

short-term employment predictions do not touch broader structural issues. We need to tackle these hard issues head on; otherwise the most encouraging business confidence figures are not of any use to us in promoting a happy and inclusive society if so many people continue to be left out.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming, and Acting Minister for Planning) (11.31): I will speak initially to the amendment, Mr Speaker. Some comment has been made about what we might do to skill up some people or provide for a transition. I recognise the positive sentiment in that. I have to point out that this government has provided additional funds for vocational education and training in the budget just passed effectively answering that.

The way that this motion probably will be amended is just a commentary on minority government. It is what happens when you have a minority government. Whatever you do, no matter how good it is, it ain’t enough; it ain’t soon enough and it doesn’t reach enough people. Whatever. I think that reasonable people will accept that that is the situation and there is not much point railing against it.

But I would like to think, having brought down the economic white paper, that, whenever the Assembly does have the opportunity to debate motions like this one, those that will carp, despite the best figures in the nation, will be a little bit more constructive about how to get to the end game where we actually provide the opportunity for those people that we skill up or give greater training, counselling, advice or whatever.

Unfortunately, there is a regular deficiency in debate here as to what to do. I have already spoken about the nonsense, and I am quite firm about that at this stage, that I have heard come forward from the opposition about what they would do for the economy under the so-called creative Canberra policy—I think that phrase belongs to the Arts Council, but nevertheless—and about the absolute paucity of support for it or any real structure behind it. At least an election ago, this government went to the electorate with a proposal for a knowledge bank, a knowledge-based economy, and a commitment to produce a white paper, and it has done all of those things and more.

I appreciate Mr Smyth’s contribution to this debate, because I think he hit, accidentally, on the nub of the problem when he talked about the Hudson Report and its statistical analysis versus the surveys that have been done on more qualitative studies that might depend on exactly how the questions are asked. I have no doubt as to the general trend in those qualitative analyses that have been done, because I think there is very good reason for that.

Some of those studies ask, “Do you support the policies of the government?” It is not the natural habitat of businesses to be dealing with a Labor government. They would much prefer to be dealing with a conservative government that has traditionally lent more towards assisting business than maybe Labor has done.

Given that this government has brought into this place a number of provisions designed to enhance the safety of workers within industry, I would expect business to rail against that. I would expect it to mount a campaign. I would expect that campaign to have an impact in any qualitative surveys. Business in the ACT has one or two quite articulate

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