Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2478 ..

Mr Moore: I think you should give your car back, Kerrie.

Mr De Domenico: Practise what you preach.

MS TUCKER: Yet the only vision displayed by the Government in this budget is a commitment to save money. This year, the Government intends to spend $600,000 of its urban services budget on transport policy. A significant proportion of this will go towards identifying the CSOs associated with the provision of Canberra's public transport system.

Are you listening upstairs, Mr Berry? He had to come down last time he heard me talking about the Labor Party. If the Labor Party were truly committed to the welfare of the community, they would not have supported the Government's motion, which is likely to effectively stop us moving our amendment on public transport. The amendment would have committed the Government to maintaining service levels. Mrs Carnell may say that the amendment would have stopped new services going to Gungahlin. This is not the case. It would not have restricted the Government's ability to increase service levels.

The Greens will always be more than supportive of any move towards increasing public transport services. If this requires additional funding to public transport, then so be it. As environmentalists, we have an absolute responsibility to take a strong stand on the issue of public transport, as dependence on private motor vehicle use is a major contributor to local and global pollution. As legislators, we have a responsibility to our community. Cutting public transport is not in the interests of the community, either now or in the future. It is not a subsidy; it is an investment.

In response to the interjections, we are still waiting for a response from the Remuneration Tribunal about an alternative package rather than a car and a salary, which is what the Greens' policy said. I also remind members that I usually ride my bike or catch a bus, so why not leave off the comments about what we are doing with our cars until we hear from the Remuneration Tribunal?

MR OSBORNE (11.45): I seem to have hit a raw nerve there, Mr Speaker. I would like to state from the outset that I will not be handing my car back in. Although we did joke, I do agree with a lot that Ms Tucker said. However, I have a real problem with the proposed changes they want to make in Tuggeranong. The routes now go through several suburbs on the way to Erindale and the town centre. They basically cover all the different suburbs. The proposed new routes circle each suburb and then go to the town centre. That sounds fine; but the problem is that, if you live in somewhere like Chisholm and you want to go to Calwell, you have to go all the way into the town centre. Once again I pose the question to the Minister, although I do not believe what he is going to tell me - - -

Mr Whitecross: Ask him for an assurance.

MR OSBORNE: I have got that. I moved a motion, Andrew. What is the next step after a motion? I do not know what I can do.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .