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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1727 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

From what Mr Whitecross said, he seems to think that, if there is a person waiting there and the Deane's bus is driving past, that is exactly what should happen, and we should put an ACTION bus on the same route to pick up that person rather than let a bus that is already driving past pick them up. How absolutely ridiculous!

The MOU, or the agreement, stops predatory pricing, so it stops either ACTION or Deane's undercutting each other to pick up each other's passengers. In other words, the price will be the same. Not only are we saying that Deane's can pick up passengers in the ACT, but we are also not saying that ACTION cannot pick up passengers in Queanbeyan. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. The MOU says that Deane's Buslines will raise no objection if ACTION seeks reciprocal rights to operate services to and from Queanbeyan which are currently operated exclusively by Deane's buses, specifically to Harman and Oaks Estate. It sounds to me like extra services here. It seems to me that people in Oaks Estate, Harman and other places on those routes might get an improved service.

Those opposite obviously think an improved service is simply no good at all. What is wrong with a resident of Canberra catching a Deane's bus from Macquarie Hostel in Barton to Fyshwick? The Deane's bus is going past Macquarie Hostel to Fyshwick. Why should they not hop onto the bus at the same price? I am sure that people who are at Macquarie Hostel right now would at times like to go to Fyshwick at a time when the Deane's bus is passing Macquarie Hostel. It would seem quite logical to me; but, if they do not want to hop onto a Deane's bus, they do not have to. We are just giving them more choice, and for a trial time, to see whether this improves the service to the travelling public in the ACT and, for that matter, improves the service potentially to the travelling public in Queanbeyan as well. What we are talking about here is something that is basic commonsense; but it seems that those opposite, Mr Whitecross in particular, would rather look after his mates, and I think a very few mates, in the TWU than make sure that our travelling public, people who want to move around our city at times when there may not be an ACTION bus going down that particular route, have an opportunity to do so at the same price.

I come back to where I started. Those opposite cut ACTION budgets by $10m over three years and they cut the number of buses on ACTION routes quite significantly; yet they have the hide, the gall, to get up and make the sorts of comments Mr Whitecross did. Mr Whitecross obviously does have a Yes, Minister approach to buses. He does believe that buses should go past passengers who want to be picked up if they are not run by his mates in the union: Bugger the travelling public, let us make them not be able to catch a Deane's bus from Macquarie to Fyshwick or from Fyshwick back into Civic because, let us be fair, it is not an ACTION bus and it is not run by Mr Whitecross's mates. It is not acceptable, Mr Speaker. We do not want a Yes, Minister approach to buses. We want an integrated bus system where Deane's can, if they are going past passengers, pick them up, and if ACTION are going into Queanbeyan they can do the same. It is only sensible to have an integrated system, and all this is is a two-month trial.

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