Page 1446 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Part (2) of the amendment that I moved simply says, “Condemns the ACT government for its failure to genuinely diversify our city’s economy over the last 13 years.” You only have to look at the way their business programs have declined and, indeed, at the business documents they produce. Give Ted Quinlan his due; the economic white paper back in 2003 had four major themes, nine strategic sectors and 47 recommendations. As Ted said, it was a statement of the bleeding obvious. Business hardly rated a mention in the government’s document Capital development: towards our second century in August 2008. It is just words; it is just floss.
If we look at the jobs diversification document, let us give Mr Barr his due. He finally could use the word “diversification” in a document, and he can get credit for that. Again, it is not about targets. They mention “thinking” and “expectations”. On page 35, under “How will we know we have succeeded?” there are some sort of measures there, but the problem is that most of this is a rehash, a renaming or an amalgamation of existing programs, or programs that had existed before and programs that they had abolished in the past. Again, we really need there to be a commitment to the business sector in this city.
They do the usual things. There are some programs there that had to be re-established after they were gutted. But you really do not have a champion in that cabinet for business in the ACT and, as a consequence, the business community, I think, suffers.
We have very smart people here. We have lots of opportunities. I do not think we have truly embraced, in any of the major areas of business, whether it be tourism or the like, what is there and actually capitalised on the benefits that they bring to the community in terms of employment and wealth creation. The government gets a dividend from it in the form of increased revenue to secure the budget. We really have not had a serious look—certainly in the last 13 years from this government—at how we might play truly to the strengths of the ACT and truly minimise the impact.
There will always be an impact when we have changes of government and changes in government circumstances, particularly at the federal level. For those of us who were here when Mr Quinlan was here, we got the constant lecture on the economic cycle of boom and bust—and that economic cycle will continue, much of it well and truly beyond our reach.
What we can do is make sure that we use the resources that we have more wisely, that we deliver better projects in a timely fashion, with better scoping and with more accountability, and that we make a serious and genuine attempt to diversify the city’s economy instead of making pat lines like the Treasurer made about the business community not stepping up. If you had worked with the business community, you would be surprised at what talent there is out there. We can still see the benefits from some of the projects that we commenced when we were last in office. The AIE started with a grant from an ACT government—and look at it today. It goes from strength to strength, and good luck to all those involved with the AIE. But until you really have a plan to grow, diversify and create jobs in the ACT, the ACT will still be well and truly beholden to the federal budget cycle. I commend my amendment to the house.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video