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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (3 April) . . Page.. 1529..


ACTION-operating subsidy

(Question No 602)

Mrs Dunne asked the Minister for Planning, upon notice:

(1) What operating subsidy has been provided to ACTION Authority during 2002-03, as at 31 March 2003;

(2) Has the Minister received advice based on the results of the recent Booz Allen Hamilton study or other suitable research, as to what the impact on the quantum of this operating subsidy if average fares charged by ACTION were reduced by 50 per cent, if so, can he please provide details of this advice;

(3) Has the Minister received advice as to what would be the impact on the quantum of this operating subsidy if ACTION did not charge any fares, if so can he please provide details of this advice;

(4) How do fare elasticities in the ACT compare with elasticities identified or estimated in other Australian jurisdictions;

(5) When is it expected that the nature of the proposed new funding model for ACTION Authority will be finalised;

(6) What action is being taken to resolve the differences in approach between ACTION Authority and the Commission of Audit, as set out in its Report No. 2, towards achieving significant operating efficiencies in the cost of ACTION Authority.

Mr Corbell: The answer to the member's question is as follows:

(1) The operating subsidy provided to the ACTION Authority during 2002-03, as at 31 March 2003 was $37.570 million;

(2) No.

(3) No.

(4) Refer response item 2 above. I am yet to be briefed on this study. Any information on these matters will be considered when the final report is provided.

(5) This work is expected to be completed this financial year.

(6) The difference in approach between ACTION Authority and the Commission of Audit mainly related to the principles underpinning the definition of 'achievable savings' and the 'cost of government ownership'. The report also highlights that those differences in opinion on the principles were largely resolved through the process, and that both the Board and the Commission agreed that there are a number of areas that could be targeted for better practice. They also agreed that those should be subject of discussion between the Government and the Board. Nevertheless, it is


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