Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 403..
MR DE DOMENICO: I thank Ms Tucker for her question. I am delighted to be able to say that this Government will continue to offer incentives when the bottom line is good value for money for the people of the ACT. In terms of what this Government is doing for small business, Ms Tucker and members opposite would be aware that from 1 January this year payroll tax thresholds went to $600,000. From 1 January next year they go to $800,000. This will mean $13.5m injected back into the economy of small business in the ACT. Is it any wonder that for the past year, since the election of the Carnell Government, there have been created 5,300 jobs in small business in the private sector in the ACT in comparison to only 700 jobs in the previous year? When this Government does things for small business it does them properly; it creates jobs in the Territory. Ms Tucker, if those small businesses that you refer to in terms of recycling estates put in their applications through the normal channels, like everybody else does, we will consider those as well.
MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question. I am aware that there are several small businesses that have asked for financial assistance. I am aware that you have donated about $125,000 under the program of industry assistance grants, which is a quite different amount. Why is it that such large amounts of financial assistance are provided to big business? Could the Government table the guidelines which it uses for making decisions on when to provide concessions to business?
MR DE DOMENICO: Can I take that question, too, Mr Speaker. Can I say that, as Mrs Carnell said, in terms of CRA, not one cent was involved - zero, zilch. The $125,000 was $125,000 more than the previous Government gave, anyway. Can I also say that there are a number of businesses that could apply for an amount of money. We do not go willingly giving money away for nothing. Yes, I am delighted to table those guidelines that you mentioned. I will get a copy of them before the close of business today.
MR BERRY: My question is directed to Mrs Carnell in her capacity as Chief Minister. I refer you to the answer to question on notice No. 123, which was finally extracted, like pulling a tooth, from you late yesterday, after almost three months.
Mrs Carnell: After we got management to do it, because of the bans.
MR BERRY: That is extremely interesting. You did say, as reported in Hansard:
We have union bans on answering questions, as those on the other side of this house would know.
Mrs Carnell said:
... we have ... 200-plus bans that are currently in place.