Page 4750 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
analysis was done and no risk management was undertaken. No risks were factored in. There was no attempt to negotiate shared risks with the promoter. We have a poor history.
I think it would be fair to say that we have a poor history in some of these events. The government subsidised the Rally of Canberra at $750,000 a year. In its final year 1,264 tourists came to Canberra as a result of that event. Contrast that with $500,000 for the Masterpieces from Paris exhibition, which brought—what?—400,000 people. So $750,000 went into that rally, bringing 1,200 people, and $500,000 went into the exhibition, bringing 400,000 people.
There are decisions that the government has to make. There will always be a reflection, ultimately, on the minister and the government of the day around which events we choose to invest in. One of the interesting recommendations from Loxton is to have an annual fund that can be invested in particular events and opportunities as they come up from time to time. As I am sure Mr Smyth would acknowledge, sometimes these opportunities emerge very quickly and you need to act quickly in order to secure them for your city. That is a recommendation that I think has considerable merit and it is certainly one that I will be pursuing. It is indeed in line with the thinking of Australian Capital Tourism.
Just to wrap up, we need to ensure that we understand the distinction between major tourism events and those community-based events. As minister for tourism, with the greatest of respect to those community events, I do not seek to run them and nor do I think it is appropriate for the tourism portfolio to be running those sorts of events. But there is, I believe, an appropriate role for the tourism portfolio to have in major events that attract people to our city.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (3:47): I thank Mr Rattenbury for his amendments. New paragraph (1A), which talks about the potential for brand Canberra, is important. It is certainly something that needs to be done. The gentleman who is perhaps talking about brand development the most around the world and with the most authority is an Englishman called Simon Anholt. Mr Anholt talks about three elements: to have a successful strategy, to develop the brand and the notion of place. He has got a lot of work on brand identity and brand development. He says you must have a strategy, you must have substance and you must have significant and ongoing action to continue to prove that you have got a strategy and you have got substance. At the heart of what I am trying to do with this motion today is to get some of that in place.
I believe Canberra is a substantial place both as a city and the nation’s capital and as a city of the world. The things we do here can have an effect. People often talk about Canberra being the “test tube”. In a way, perhaps we are as a city-state, but we can do things and show the world how things can be done. Part of what we should be doing is developing the brand of Canberra as a substantial place. And it is a substantial place. It has got Australia’s best university as one of the five universities that we have here—the ANU, the University of Canberra, the Australian Catholic University, the University of New South Wales at ADFA and Charles Sturt University. It is a substantial academic place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video