The Prime Minister has defended the government's decision to give Cadbury a $16m grant to re-open its tourist facility in Hobart.
This has enraged those who thought SPC should have been given $25m to restructure.
The governments argument is that Cadbury are adding to Tasmanian tourism and not to their own operations and so profit levels. Therefore it's not subsidising private enterprise, it's supporting a struggling State.
Is there a real difference though? The argument could be made that both projects have wider effects on the local community. Because there will be more employment and spending in each area (Hobart and Shepparton) there is a multiplier effect (second round effects) that employ even more people.
Some might say that the government has applied a double standard. Others will argue that there is a difference between helping a company make a profit and helping one assist the local community.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment