Page 2558 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
came to estimates acknowledging that they would be reviewed if things became adverse—although, my colleagues on the committee were not willing or game to have that in the main report. I think it is disappointing. If the downturn continues to occur—we know it will in relation to smoking and I accept that as a reality—with this change to note acceptors, we need to think about whether we are making clubs less viable. I am concerned that we are going to end up with a handful of clubs, concentrated ownership across the territory and maybe down to two or three.
Finally, on a positive note, I express the support of the opposition in relation to the improvements at Manuka Oval. Whilst it would be great to have more AFL games through the year, when they do occur, as I think the Treasurer may have acknowledged in one of his comments, it stimulates the local business community. It is a welcome addition to activity in the area. It is a marvellous district or village, the Manuka area, and if we can continue to maximise the use of that facility, it will be a good thing for Canberra and a good thing for the community. It is an area where government expenditures are certainly to be encouraged and supported.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (3.58): I have a number of comments in relation to the estimates hearings and the budget line on economic development. Firstly, the budget initiative that extends the knowledge fund into 2008-09 caught my attention. It provides an interesting insight, perhaps, into how the budget reflects government priorities. The community inclusion fund, which is described as a fund to assist the most vulnerable members of our community by allocating funding to community and government agencies, receives just $1 million this year, increasing to $2 million in 2007-08, whereas the knowledge fund—described as the centrepiece of the ACT government’s vision of a thriving and globally competitive knowledge-based economy—receives over double that amount at $2 million per year, rising to $3 million in 2008-09.
I think it has to be recognised that this knowledge fund is a kind of welfare program in itself; it is just that those welfare payments are directed at business. I wonder whether applications to the knowledge fund outnumber approvals eight to one, as do applications to the community inclusion fund. I would also be curious to see an evaluation of the relative cost and effectiveness of projects funded through each fund, to provide some comparison of how usefully the money is expended, and the benefits to the ACT community from that expenditure. By the way, it is not that I do not support government investment initiatives to support small or micro business; on the contrary, I think this is an important part of economic development in Canberra. I believe investment in social outcomes should be recognised as being just as important as investment in economic outcomes. Remember there are three prongs to sustainability—the economic, the ecological, and the social.
It was useful to have some discussion in the estimates committee hearings about the nature of the support provided to small and micro business and some of the grants available to assist this sector. For instance, I was pleased to hear that the government has an ongoing commitment to the Capital Region Enterprise and Employment Development Association, or CREEDA, and the three business incubators it operates. I also welcome the appointment of the small business commissioner and will reserve any judgments until I have seen the benefits of the work he is going to do over the next year or so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .