Page 1636 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
over $4 million in corporate welfare under initiatives to support business innovation and facilitate business investment. This money will be used to provide grants to ACT businesses and to pay for advisory services to certain sectors of the ACT business community at the expense of all ACT taxpayers. It will also pay for an annual business investment facilitation event, which I assume is designed for the government to schmooze potential corporate visitors at the expense of all ACT residents.
I have worked long in the Australian business community, and I certainly could not be accused of being anti business. But giving businesses the freedom to operate effectively within appropriate levels of regulation is one thing, whereas subsidising them with taxpayer funds is quite another. This is not only a problem with the government’s budget; it has certainly in the past been a major flaw in the thinking of the current opposition, particularly the shadow Treasurer, who clearly is wedded to the idea that the only way to attract successful business development is for it to be funded by government. If business needs government handouts to be successful it should not be operating.
I have heard much play in this place about the handouts that occurred under the Carnell government and ill-placed funds into groups like Impulse and a string of others and I certainly do not ever sanction the idea of handouts to business and government largesse to the private sector. It will always be accepted by companies; they will always be happy to take the money; but frankly, if a business needs a government to underwrite it or to give it financial funds to set up, then you have to seriously question the projections and the economic funding and modelling of that business.
The whole thing about private enterprise is that it is not public enterprise; it is not public moneys that are involved; and, whilst we want a climate where business can prosper and employ and pay taxes, it is going one step too far, in my view, for governments to be pouring good money after bad into ventures or into propping up business activities. These are funds that ought to be returned to the taxpayers who are experiencing the burden of constant tax levels.
In addition to its new corporate welfare initiatives, the government will spend $2.075 million propping up the rather poor operating performance that I have raised previously of the University of Canberra, which has occurred under this government’s leadership. While the budget states that this funding will provide money for some new courses and for a new university chair—and I understand that chair will have the potential to deliver benefits—what is not mentioned is that the university is unable to fund these things through existing revenue because of the $15 million to $16 million loss posted by the university in 2007. Thus we see, on closer inspection, some of the much-touted spending on education, at this level at least, is merely the result of an attempt to make up for past failures.
Despite the government’s faith in the savings that will allegedly be made by the Shared Services Centre, they have also allocated $10.04 million in new expenditure initiatives to establish new operational teams, new staffing positions in the centre, and attract new recruits. It certainly will be interesting to see during the estimates committee process exactly what is going on in the Shared Services Centre and how these allocations affect the government’s previous forecasts of savings.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .