Page 2723 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
at home and catching up on things which people do not regularly have time to do, that there are significant real and imagined impediments to people taking their leave entitlements and that people are spending more time doing holiday-type activities in their local areas instead of taking a holiday in order to attain break-type satisfaction.
Where does that leave us overall? It leaves us in a position where we need to be smarter with how we spend our tourism dollars. For once I would agree with those opposite who have been making all the accusations throughout this budget debate that it is about how you spend the money, but apparently not in tourism. In Tourism it is a very different story. It is just about providing massive amounts of money. It does not matter how you spend it. It makes no difference, does it, because you have the Brendan Smyth multiplier effect that you can spend it and they will come?
Against these trends and against these major influences in how our work and life balance is occurring across the country and how people are facing the fact that they have less leisure time and they are being more discerning in how they use it, clearly there is a range of economic factors that affect our region in relation to petrol prices and the absence of low-cost airlines like Jetstar flying into Canberra. There is a range of aspects that do make things more difficult for us in this region. However, we were able in the last financial year, when again there was a reduction in the allocation for tourism on the year previously, to achieve a six per cent increase, the only jurisdiction in the country to do so.
Overall, the facile argument from Mr Smyth that you just spend and spend and it will all give a return is rubbish. It is absolute rubbish. The bigger factor and the most important factor here is around the work and family balance, the work and life balance. Mr Speaker, some of these factors clearly go beyond the control of domestic tourism authorities, but we will look to use the money that is allocated to tourism effectively, as I would require across all of my departments. Members of the opposition are big on generality—yes, there is a need to show expenditure restraint and not to spend too much money willy-nilly—but they are specifically against every initiative that actually sees a reduction in expenditure.
Mr Mulcahy must be really worried about each of the shadow ministers. As the alternative Treasurer in this place and someone who certainly states his economic credentials loudly across the territory, he must be very worried deep down by the series of promises that come from that lot over there. It really must be of concern to him, because all we have seen so far in this budget debate has been, again, broad general statements about the Liberal Party’s economic credibility and the rest of it. When they are actually asked to stand up for some prudent, sensible economic propositions that this government has put forward in this budget, all of a sudden they are all terrible and they specifically oppose everything. That is at the core of their economic credibility. We are seeing in this debate exactly why they will not be gracing this side of the chamber for some time.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (9.53): I am pleased that Mr Barr used that report, because it highlights his failures. It details the downturn in tourism in this country. But his answer to the downturn in tourism in this country is to do less. He portrays us as asking for massive increases in tourism. I would like him to point out anywhere where I have said, “Increase the tourism budget massively.” “Massive” is the word. “Massive increases” on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .