Page 2612 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What is the government hiding? A number of large projects are to be put to tender, contracts will be signed, and this Assembly will be expected to tick off on them afterwards. That is not how government works. I think we all understand the need to protect the budget bottom line and get the best deal, but at some stage the Assembly needs to be involved, and this government does not seem to realise that.
There is a large number of areas in this portfolio, for instance, tourism. As a committee we looked at tourism and venues, and there are a number of recommendations about getting on with long-term planning for the city. Recommendation 50 is that the ACT government in conjunction with relevant stakeholders promulgate a vision for the Canberra CBD. Agreed in principle. The government’s answer is that the city plan stipulates a vision for the CBD, a plan they virtually walked away from. They walked away from the city plan; they walked away from the city to the lake, and yet we are expected to believe that is their vision.
Recommendation 51 is that the government develop a vision for Canberra as a whole with a long-term plan of 50 years, a medium-term plan of 15 years and a short-term plan of five years. Noted. The government’s response is that it continues to plan for the long-term growth of Canberra. I do not think that is what the committee meant. It is about a vision statement. Light rail is not a vision in and of itself. It might be a project that helps deliver a long-term vision, but if you do not know where you going and all you are doing is running from project to project, all you do is exacerbate the problem we have.
We are largely a land-based economy and we have largely a land-based budget. Until we start to realise the long-term value of certain blocks of land beyond being sold as quickly as the government can get them out the door to balance their budget and we realise the long-term value of those blocks of land and we get it right now, we will continue to be an economy that is largely land based or land-taxation based.
Recommendation 46—I have said for many years—is that the ACT government update its tourism 2020 strategy to consider 10 years to 2030 and take into account accommodation, attractions and events. Agreed. The government has finally agreed to looking at accommodation, attractions, events, which is great. The government’s response is that the ACT tourism 2020 strategy is part of the national 2020 framework and will be reviewed and updated in that context. We do not even have our own identity. We are confident, bold and ready—but not really. That is the problem. Glib words, glib lines, glib slogans from a government that becomes increasingly glib in the way it treats the people of the ACT and in what it delivers.
Another portfolio in this area is the arts portfolio. You only have to look at the arts portfolio and its potential. The arts minister tabled the other day in this place a statement on the arts. It was curious because she tabled the statement but then she forgot, failed or did not want to read her own tabling statement. Perhaps that is because we might have had a bit of a debate about it because she would be forced to move that the paper be noted. But we have is a new arts strategy. It is about the same as the old arts policy framework. It has a larger font, so it has a few extra pages in it, but there really is no difference to what will come in the future. The chapter starting on page 28 that says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video