Page 1063 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
time after time they manifestly fail to address the significant structural issues that this territory budget faces. They block every attempt at serious reform, be it in education or in tourism or, in this instance, an attempt to reform funding for an industry whose long-term future is very bleak if we do not reform the funding.
A way forward in this debate is simply to revert to the previous funding model: race fields legislation on top of the ACTTAB turnover, 4.5 per cent plus race fields. That is one option, and that is one option that we have discussed with industry. I do not think it is going to be their preferred option but it certainly is an option. That would relieve the government of the issue of having to underwrite future declining revenue for the racing industry.
In one regard it would make my job easier because it would free up resources for the government to invest in education, for the government to invest in health, for the government to invest in disability services or public transport, or any of the other very worthy causes that we seek to fund in the budget each year. So the question that I am grappling with and that the government is grappling with is: is extra prize money for races more important than the Ambulance Service, the fire service, teachers, hospitals, the environment—all of the various issues that we must face every year in putting together a budget?
Let me reiterate that this debate is not about a funding cut for the racing industry. This debate is about the level of increase in funding for the racing industry.
Opposition members interjecting—
MR BARR: Those opposite want to interject with their petty little catcalls and their persistent interjections, Madam Assistant Speaker, throughout my contribution to this debate. In fact, their pattern throughout pretty much every non-Liberal speaker in any debate in this chamber this year has been this sort of interjection, constantly throughout, because they have nothing constructive to add.
Mr Coe: You didn’t interject throughout my speech, did you, Andrew? You were as quiet as a church mouse during my speech!
Mr Seselja: You were yelling across the chamber. You are very sensitive.
MR BARR: They have nothing constructive to add to this debate.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Mr Barr, one minute. Mr Coe, Mr Seselja, please! Mr Barr is entitled to be heard in silence.
Mr Seselja: Madam Assistant Speaker, just on that, at one point during Mr Coe’s—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Clerk, stop the clock.
Mr Seselja: At one point during Mr Coe’s speech we could not hear ourselves for Andrew Barr’s interjection, and there was nothing from the chair. So I would seek your ruling as to why he needs to be heard in silence but Mr Coe and others were not heard in silence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video