Page 3305 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, could I ask that Mrs Carnell get Mr Kaine to write her speeches in future?
MADAM SPEAKER: No, Mr Lamont, you could not. Please proceed, Mrs Carnell.
MRS CARNELL: While the Chief Minister may believe that ACTION is a successful tool against social inequity, there is evidence to suggest that it is not the less well off but the more wealthy who actually use our buses. So where is this much-vaunted social justice? Why are these people who need the bus services not using them? They cannot, because they simply do not have access to them.
Mr Lamont: Because they are all too busy, lining up at the closed-down chemist shops.
MRS CARNELL: Yes; and why? It is because the Federal Labor Government stuffed it up. A 1992 survey found that 54 per cent of work trips were taken by people earning more than the average weekly earnings and that it was predominantly children from private schools who were taking advantage of the public transport system. So much for social justice! ACTION is crying out for reform. Minor internal reform is not enough. (Extension of time granted)
As the Industry Commission report showed, when competition has been introduced into systems it has made open access to services more available to people, which means that it has allowed suppliers to design, organise and provide services at fares in line with market preferences so that they actually appeal to people and people can afford them; and it has encouraged operators to develop new routes, introduce more effective work practices and use a range of vehicles to better serve passengers at the lowest possible cost. In other words, they look after the passenger. What a surprise! The introduction of competition has seen innovations in discount fare systems and higher frequency services. That is what competition does - it provides more services, at lower cost, that are more available to the community. We are not saying that; the Industry Commission report is saying that.
Some form of competition or contestability is desirable if ACTION is to become more efficient and provide better services for the people of Canberra. I do not think anyone would doubt that, except possibly this Labor Government. Competition can come in a number of forms. Any competent operator could operate at any fare and at any time, but only after adequate notice has been given to operate the commercial service. Competition could allocate by periodic competitive tender - something that Mr De Domenico has spoken about - to the operator which bids the lowest subsidy for a guaranteed minimum level of service, which is really important.
Mr De Domenico: And, in fact, an income to the Government.
MRS CARNELL: That is right; the Government would get an income as well. We could certainly require a maximum level of service from these people. We know that, in many circumstances, we could get substantially better school bus services as well, at no cost to this Government. It does not have to be done in one particular way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .