Page 2020 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
measures at the borders. But what they have realised is that they have to get their share of the action. Canberra, the ACT, has to maintain its share of the action if we are going to improve our economy. There are massive markets there to be tapped through China, but the other states will not sit back.
I had the privilege, alongside Mr Hargreaves, of attending the biotech conference in Chicago a few weeks ago. We saw there the massive competitive influence in that one area where we want to be a leader. Not only other countries but also states of the United States had stands bigger than the Australian exhibition and, perched right in the middle, was the ACT. He agreed with me that for us to be successful in this area of technology where potentially we could do some great things and where, to the government’s credit, they are partnering both UC and ANU, we have to find a niche; we have to have a unique selling proposition that says, “The reason you should come to Canberra is this.” We need to develop partnerships, probably with countries such as New Zealand which are also small in the scheme of things.
Similarly in tourism, I acknowledge that we cannot be competitive with the budget of, say, New South Wales or Queensland, but we need to be clever. We need to market it so that we, as a community, can reap the benefits of the tourist dollar. We are not even getting our fair share of the tourist dollar. I am, frankly, a little sceptical of the domestic visitor numbers in this book because I do not think that they are as promising as they look there. We as a territory, if we are going to preserve employment for our young people, if we are going to get the recognition we need as the capital of a nation and which we do not get, need to use the tourism dollars sensibly, manage them well and ensure that we have professional people and a professional board to take that message to the rest of Australia and to the world.
The economic stimulus from tourism is phenomenal. Work that Access Economics conducted for their 2004 report on the ACT tourism industry left no doubt about the economic benefits of tourism, including direct taxation revenue for this government, which far outweigh the investment in promotion. That suggests that the government’s decision to save a few million dollars by cutting funding to tourism was, in fact, a short-sighted decision.
Apparently Mr Costello—I am referring to Michael Costello—is the guru. He cannot be questioned. He comes in here, throws everything out and says, “This has to happen and don’t allow it to be questioned too long.” I do not think that Mr Costello is necessarily an expert on everything in our society, in our community and in the administration of government. For that reason, we should have had this proposal submitted through the appropriate review committee so that all 17 members of the Assembly could be brought to the table and we could get clear justification of why the government is rushing all these changes through the structure.
As I said at the outset, I take exception to and challenge the Chief Minister on his view that we do not believe in efficiency. Of course we believe in efficiency in government. We have watched the health system decline under this government and we know that much could be achieved there simply through improvements in efficiency.
Mr Corbell: You are just not prepared to support any savings measures.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .