Page 541 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
households and Australian households caused by the rises in interest rates as a result of the legacy of the Howard government. When those who pay closer attention to these matters look at the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, they will see his new-found concerns as he has assumed that role. He talked about housing affordability and the impact of higher interest rates on young families certainly at the beginning, but he has neglected to mention any of that today. In his 15 minutes this morning he did not speak on the issue; he did not mention the impact of the Howard government’s inflationary spending on Canberra families. He did not mention the words “interest rates”, “inflation”, “mortgage” or “family”, but these are the things that this debate is really about.
Of course the ACT government does not want to see any diminution of the tourism experience provided by the national institutions. We will continue to work closely with them in marketing their major events. When I was responding to the question that I was asked on ABC radio about the potential impact on tourism of cuts to national institutions in the ACT, I indicated that our experience was that, when major events were offered by the national institutions and they were only offered in Canberra, we received a significant increase in visitation—and that is an accurate statement. For example, the Turner to Monet exhibition that commences at the National Gallery very soon is only available for viewing in Canberra. If it was going to the art gallery in Sydney or the National Gallery of Victoria, we would have no chance of marketing that effectively to Sydney and Melbourne. We will receive a significant increase in visitation to the ACT as a result of the fact that we exclusively have this exhibition.
So from a tourism perspective the fact that some of these major blockbusters may not go on the road will in fact be a good thing for Canberra. What will be a bad thing for Canberra, though—and I am very happy to state this—is if the efficiency dividends are applied disproportionately in areas of marketing and promotion of the national institutions in terms of their own marketing and promotion budgets. We work in collaboration with them around major events like Floriade. We have an event trail; we partner with them. This year the theme for Floriade is Australian film so we are looking forward to and will partner with the National Film and Sound Archive and a range of other national institutions in the delivery of that particular event.
I will argue very strongly, not only with the federal minister but also with the agencies concerned who have the responsibility to implement the efficiency dividend, to ensure that the impact is not felt on the tourism experience in the ACT and that they are able to continue to work with the ACT government around the promotion of major events and activities. It is important that that work continues, and we will continue to support it through Australian Capital Tourism. One need only go and look at visitcanberra.com.au right now to see the amount of promotional work, the amount of extra work, that we undertake with the national institutions to promote Canberra as a tourist destination.
There is no doubt that those institutions are a major driver of tourism to Canberra and that is why we strongly support them and we continue to work with them. To suggest that an efficiency dividend this year is any different from the efficiency dividend that was sought from those organisations every year under the previous government, and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .