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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2175 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

If the Government wants the community to believe that they are serious about providing a decent public transport system, this is their chance to put their money where their mouth is; this is their chance to amend their Appropriation Bill now, to ensure that there are adequate funds to provide the public transport system which the Graham report says we need and for which the community have been asking for the last three years.

The Grants Commission said in their 1995-96 report that this Government was spending $10m below what they should spend to provide an average level of service. It is time this Government showed its commitment to providing even an average level of service to the community in the ACT. If the Government are serious about a turnaround on public transport, they will move to increase this appropriation. If they do not move to increase the appropriation, the community are entitled to believe that all the rhetoric coming out of Mr Kaine about how he has changed his mind and that the Government now want a better service, not the worst service they have been giving us for the last two years, is just that - rhetoric from a government that is worried about the polls; not a serious commitment to public transport in this Territory.

MS HORODNY (11.50): We are very concerned, of course, about what has been happening to ACTION bus services over the last few years, the most recent cuts being the $12.7m over the three-year period of this Assembly. That is a lot of money to cut out of ACTION. We have heard from the Liberals that the Labor Party cut $10m out of the bus service when they were in government. That is also a substantial amount. If you were already unhappy with that then and you thought $10m already represented a big cut, why did you continue cutting? There is only so much that the bus service can stand.

When we first came to this Assembly we heard from the Transport Workers Union that they could not maintain services with such an enormous cut, but they did say that they could absorb a $4m cut; so, they were not totally uncompromising, Mrs Carnell. They did say they could absorb $4m; they could put in place more multiskilling, restructure management and do other things; and $4m was a cut that they could cope with, even though they had already absorbed the $10m cut that the Labor Party had imposed. They always said, "If you try to take $12.7m out, then the service will suffer", and that is what has happened.

Now, after two years in office, you have commissioned a review. I am very pleased that Mr Kaine has commissioned such a review. It spells out major changes to the service. It includes changes relating to industrial issues and to the way services are delivered. You say that you would like to implement these changes, and that is good. We have said consistently that you cannot reduce a bus service, increase the fares for that reduced service, reduce parking fees and have a good outcome for public transport. What that combination spells out is reduced use of buses and increased use of cars.

Roger Graham, at page 27 of his report, said that one of the issues that are being raised by people is that bus fares are actually more expensive than Civic parking charges. Obviously, we need to improve the bus service and then encourage commuters to use that bus service; reward the bus users by keeping bus fares low and maintain the original $8 all day parking fee. In that way, those who are environmentally responsible would be rewarded and would save money. Those who want to save money could catch buses

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