Page 1750 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 13 May 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that we call on the ACT Legislative Assembly to continue to promote economic development in the Canberra region by supporting innovation, regional development opportunities and growth in the higher education sector. Why do we not just call on the Assembly to continue to promote economic development in the Canberra region? Why limit it? We have a Minister for Economic Development who has found education, who latterly came to the game on diversification, and who in reality very rarely delivers.
We had some glib lines and phrases. We had a little bit of blame, a little bit of finger pointing and some mud throwing. But at the heart of it was the word “bipartisan”. The Chief Minister says, “How dare those Canberra Liberals not be bipartisan on everything I announce?” It is because you are not bipartisan, Chief Minister. “Bipartisan” means both groups working together. But your idea of bipartisanship is that you make an announcement and we tug our forelocks at your graciousness and fall at your feet and say, “Oh, wonderful Chief Minister, yes, you’ve hit the nail on the head again.”
We have seen it several times. Just this year the Chief Minister announced a bipartisan inquiry into gay men, except that he forgot to tell the other partner. This is so typical of the way this Chief Minister and this government behave. On the issue of regional development and regional cooperation and on assisting business, they come late to the game.
It is interesting that it was the former Liberal government that got EPIC up and running. We scooped the pool on funding from the then Howard government and then we scooped the pool on the NICTA funding and got NICTA here, because we understand innovation and its connection to higher education. But this lot opposite are late to the game. It is not until 2012 that I think we actually heard a member talk about diversification from that side. It was not until 2012 that they actually had a document that looked at diversification. That document was a rehash, a relaunch, a rename, a rebadge of all the things they got rid of from the previous Liberal government. Mr Barr signed up to this with a single capricious stroke of a pen. He signed away and gutted them all in the government business programs in 2006.
He says that we should all be supporting his endeavours at UC. Minister, why are you not supporting all business by creating a level playing field and giving them all a fair go? You have to question why UC needs special treatment under the planning laws to reach their potential so that—what is it that Dr Bourke says?—they can “exploit their property”. Yes, in his motion, he refers to:
… the expansion of UC’s functions to include cultural, sporting, professional, technical and vocational services to the community; and the commercial development or exploitation of its property …
Why should UC get a special consideration in that regard? Why should not all of Canberra’s business be able to work on the same playing field as all of the special cases that the government is now putting in place? Mr Rattenbury talked about the party of equity and fairness for all. Yet we now have a different planning regime for capital metro, for the Mr Fluffy houses and for UC through very different
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video