ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

.. Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 12 Hansard (28 October) . .

Page.. 3774..


MR COE (4.41): I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the chamber are very disappointed with the government's response. Of course Mr Rattenbury and Mr Barr ducked and weaved throughout. They pretty much dodged the entire issue of perpetual plates. They spoke about ride sharing, they spoke about annual fees, they spoke about all sorts of things, even unregulated businesses such as IT start-ups, bookshops, newspapers, none of which are regulated by the government. This is a unique situation and it requires a bespoke solution. The government has 22,000 territory public servants of which a few were dedicated to working on the taxi industry innovation review discussion paper and the subsequent regulatory work that followed. Despite all those resources the government has not got an answer.

It is all very well for Mr Rattenbury to come in and say, "What would you do, Mr Coe?" Let us have a look at the amendment he is supporting:

... agrees with the Government approach to review how the introduction of ride sharing has influenced the price of perpetual taxi plates 24 months after the commencement of ride share in the ACT.

What does that mean, Mr Rattenbury? Does that mean compensation in 24 months time? Does that mean that a Labor-Green government in 24 months time would pay the difference between the current market rate and the market rate for a perpetual plate in 24 months time? Is that what Mr Rattenbury is saying? If he is going to have a go at the opposition that do not have the resources of government, that have not had a task force looking at this issue, and say that we should have all the answers, perhaps he should do some-soul searching too. Maybe he is a bit conflicted on this issue.

Maybe he feels a little guilty that there are 217 plate owners in Canberra that are going to have their lifesavings wiped out. He should feel guilty. Was he making a noise in cabinet about this? He claims to be a swinging vote. He claims to be in cabinet but not bound by cabinet. We have not yet seen him swing on an issue. We have not yet seen an independent Shane Rattenbury in this place. All he does is dovetail in behind this government.

There are numerous members of the Labor Party that are not in this chamber. I hope that they are listening right now in their offices. Each of them should also feel guilty that they are letting down hundreds of Canberra family businesses with this move, letting down hundreds of Canberra family businesses who are having their lifesavings wiped out as a result of this government's decision.

I said in my speech numerous times that the opposition supports ride share. We support the introduction of ride share in the ACT. I believe that it is unavoidable and I think to harness ride share is the right way forward. But that does not mean that we need to hang everyone else out to dry, and that is exactly what this government is doing.

This government has exclusive agreements or exclusive arrangements in many things. Regularly we see contracts go out for an exclusive supply of this, an exclusive delivery of X or Y. The government has exclusive services all over the place. Is the


Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search


If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT