Page 2931 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I note the government has responded to all of the recommendations of the estimates process. I have indicated in response to questions this week in relation to the public accounts committee that we will be finalising our government response to those recommendations and I certainly look forward to continuing that debate.
I now turn to the tourism, sport and recreation and business and industry development areas of the Economic Development portfolio. I must observe about Mr Smyth’s contribution that I do not think I have heard call for more plans since Black Jack McEwen. It is a bit of McEwenism emerging in Mr Smyth’s approach to this, but I also know that if we deliver each of these plans then I will take Mr Doszpot’s advice to ensure that they are not glossy. When we do deliver a plan I get accused that it is glossy and that I am a merchant of spin. I think in this instance I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t, so we will continue to pursue—
Mr Smyth: Maybe you are just damned.
MR BARR: Well, maybe so, Mr Smyth. We will continue to pursue our policy objectives in relation to the Economic Development Directorate. I note the interest of the Greens party in relation to the clean economy strategy. I think the one element that I would like to make clear to everyone is that none of these strategies will be old-style 1960s industry development plans out of the sort of Soviet Union-Chinese economy approach, seeking to micromanage each area of industry within the territory. I have no interest at all in pursuing that sort of industry development strategy.
Frankly, I would rather just give everyone a tax cut than I would spend years developing ridiculous micro plans for industry development of every possible permutation. The government does not have that level of control over economic activity, nor should we. I do not think we should be desiring that level of control. I am surprised that a Liberal Party spokesperson is calling for such a level of government intervention in the industry. I do find that amusing. Nonetheless we will continue our work and there will be a robust debate about the virtue of strategic tax relief versus initiatives of support off the budget and we look forward to that debate in the next 12 months.
In relation to Enlighten, before I close, I would like to thank Mr Rattenbury for his most sensible of observations and commentary in relation to the event. It again perhaps does not surprise me that the Sunday Times in its race to be the poor man’s Sunday Telegraph—the downward spiral to third-rate tabloid journalism—would seek to entirely misrepresent the nature of such an event. It was never the government’s intention to make money off Enlighten. We in fact had a budget allocation to ensure that we could set up and market the event. We have a marketing budget that we spend anyway, but of course we sought to promote in our key destination markets our new event. That is logical. I would be surprised if anyone thought that we would establish a new event and then not market it. Of course we were going to market it and of course there are higher costs in the first year. The industry standard is that it takes about five years to establish a new event and I think that is a reasonable expectation for Enlighten. There will be changes to the format. The event will evolve, just as Floriade has over its time and just as other events do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video