Page 2887 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
suggestions in there about how we compete, but when, on one issue, we are behind Orange and Mudgee, you really do question why that is so. How can it be that Orange and Mudgee will beat us? The answer may well be that they have been in the food and wine area for some time, and that is true. But given what we have got in the other attractions that we have got, and the amenity that we have got, it is kind of hard to believe that we are that far behind, that we rank behind Orange and Mudgee—as much as I like a good visit to Mount Canobolas and some of the wineries up around Mudgee, which are very good.
The purpose of the motion in one way is to prompt the government, and we got the standard response from the minister to rattle off a list of things. But if you read what he has put in his motion, a lot of that does not address what is in this summary of visitor perceptions of the ACT from Tourism Research Australia. They highlight a lot of things about perception, they highlight things about packaging and they highlight access to low-cost fares. They say that people were simply not interested in the destination and had other destinations higher on their list.
So it is about changing that perception, still, of Canberra, that we are not hip and homespun, that we are not a cultural place that you would go to, that people still doubt the quality offering in food and wine and that people still doubt that we truly are a family destination at the other end of the spectrum. I do not see answers to that in what the minister has said in his amendment. But it is not unexpected that we get an amendment like this from this minister.
Madam Speaker, tourism in the ACT has enormous potential. I think it is sad, for instance, that the government has now put a new convention centre on the backburner, notwithstanding the fact that David Marshall potentially drove off the road and that such an announcement would cause him distress. I am sure it makes us all very upset. But the minister said we have 60 organisations helping us to do this.
Well, there is another list of 54 organisations that would like to see the convention centre go ahead. It is a shame, particularly in that essential piece of business tourism infrastructure, that the government puts something like capital metro before that. One of my great fears—I know it is a great fear in the industry—is what we saw with the construction of the Gungahlin Drive extension. It sucked the life out of the major capital works budget but, in doing so, it also sucked the life out of all the minor things that needed to be done. In particular, one of the great concerns within the industry is that some of the smaller things that have been happening will disappear because the government will need to ensure that capital metro gets the funding.
It is interesting. I think that the upside of it is that all three parties agree that tourism is a very good thing for the ACT and that there is lots of potential. We certainly, I believe, do disagree on the way forward from here, but we will wait with interest to see what happens between now and 2016.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video