Page 4010 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a Labor Party conference. Despite what the minister would have us believe, the day was strongly opposed by the Canberra business community. It is worth noting what Mr Barr said in this place on 25 September:
This day—
Melbourne Cup Day—
following the consultation period, was by far the most popular choice for an additional day. I believe in the order of three-quarters of all respondents indicated this as their preferred day. It was an extensive consultation process with all of the key stakeholder groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, for example, amongst others.
There is a very clear implication from the minister of overwhelming support from different sections of the Canberra community. However, information that I have received under the Freedom of Information Act shows that there was strong opposition from most sections of the Canberra business community. The Housing Industry Association, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Canberra Business Council, the Australian Hotels Association and Prime Television all strongly opposed the proposal to create an extra public holiday.
I think it was mischievous on the part of the minister, in reporting to this place, as he did on 25 September, clearly to create an impression that he had talked to business groups. The citing of one group in particular in support of his claim that three-quarters of respondents indicated it was their preferred day was, I suggest, designed to create an impression of something other than what happened.
The consultation process was not clear-cut and, if anything, showed there was considerable opposition to the plan. The decision to create a new public holiday should be seen for what it was—a pandering to the union movement that is insignificant in our community bar in the Labor Party. The opposition of business groups was completely ignored in favour of support from UnionsACT.
It seems there is a perception among some opposite that these groups represent the big end of town and not ordinary people. In fact, this is not correct. The industry groups that I have mentioned represent small businesses, retailers, hoteliers, restaurant owners and so on. These people and, significantly, their employees, suffered from the government’s decision. What should have been a popular and profitable day was turned into a disaster.
I must say, though, that I am pleased the government will abolish Family and Community Day next year. However, I was rather worried that the minister flagged on radio yesterday that the possibility of holding union picnic day on Melbourne Cup Day was now emerging as one of his new ideas. Such a move, applying as it will to just a small percentage of the community, will not be as disastrous as an all-encompassing public holiday, but it does have the potential to hurt businesses, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors. If we are to have a union picnic day, the date should be set after due consideration has been given to the views of business groups.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .