Page 1155 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
out a range of projects that are achievable in the desired time frame, that support and invest in our community infrastructure and support a range of business across Canberra. It needs to be noted that industry stakeholders and the ACT chamber of commerce are fully supportive of this bill and welcomed input into its development through a range of stakeholder roundtable discussions.
Criticism of the benefits of this bill, based on the argument that it has moved from a stimulus package to a local initiatives package, neglects to recognise the input and support of industry, the criteria by which projects were assessed and the substantial investment into the ACT through the commonwealth’s national stimulus package.
Additionally, criticism of this bill based on the argument that it remains unclear about the exact number of jobs that can be created or maintained, or that funds will be directed towards plant, equipment and material, neglects to recognise the difficulty in determining a direct correlation between projects and local jobs, but there is no doubt that jobs will be supported. And it neglects to recognise that the purchase of plant and materials also support a diverse base of small business in our community.
On the suggested issue that perhaps the ACT government has not been able to provide adequate financial updates, I note that regular advice has been provided by Treasury to government and that government, in turn, has updated the community on the likely impact of lost revenues through GST updates, interest rate charges and the like. I also note that the ACT published its midyear review within time and in line with almost all other states, back in December 2008.
Having made those brief comments, I would like to thank my committee colleagues and the committee secretariat for their support during the inquiry. I think we underestimate the commendable job that the secretariat does for committees.
In summary, I think that this bill, without a doubt, provides confidence and support to local business and will provide an injection into our economy. The final and substantive recommendation is fully supported.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.19): Mr Speaker, I think the outcome that this report represents is exactly the reason why we should have committee consideration whenever the government puts forward an appropriation bill. I would like to thank the ministers who attended. We spoke with all ministers about the various aspects of their portfolios, and it was good to get to the heart of the matter that the government was seeking to achieve through this bill.
There are 16 recommendations and I think it is important to get the context of where the recommendations come from. As the committee notes on page 7 of the report, the third appropriation bill started as a second mini-budget when it was announced back in December that the stimulus package was to come.
Over the course of December, January, February and into March, of course, it became a local initiatives package. It became a very modest package about which one should not get one’s hopes up, according to the Treasurer. I think that is probably an accurate description. There are a number of concerns that the committee had with the bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .