Page 543 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I understand, however, that the government will not be supporting my amendment today. Clearly they will not. I thank them for the advance notice of that. The explanation given by the government is that the demand-responsive market will be open to anyone. While the ICRC sets the maximum fare levels for ACTION and the taxi industry, it does not have the right to set minimum fare levels for free market competition providers. In contrast, the government wants to be able to set minimum fare levels for the new provider so that they cannot undercut ACTION with cheaper minimum fares. Opening it up to free market competition would mean that if a provider wants to undercut an existing service, and can manage to do that and survive bankruptcy, then that is their choice.
The government, in turn, would have to revisit their pricing of the existing bus or taxi services to see whether that needed to be reviewed and even dropped under ICRC recommendations. That is probably a much, much better mechanism. That mechanism will provide a much more viable and a more options-based service to the broader community, and that is what free market competition is all about.
The opposition will be supporting Dr Foskey’s amendment as it basically amends new section 83 (3) in the government’s bill to allow the minister to still issue authorisation for a demand-responsive service as long as he has considered the impact on the existing service, whereas the government’s bill says that the minister must reject the proposal if it has an adverse impact on existing services. We would like to see the minister given the flexibility because perhaps there are cases which are far different to other cases. Why be stuck in a rigidity because that happens to perhaps serve the department’s best interests? Let the minister make those determinations.
Dr Foskey’s amendment allows for some leeway for new providers into the demand-responsive transport market where there might be a minor threat to the current transport provider but not so much of a threat that some form of competition should be rejected. This new competition might further stimulate the market and actively serve to improve things for the current provider in the long run. It may even give a little more incentive to ACTION to add value to a particular service. That is also a very good thing.
To sum up: this legislation is at least a start—it is a good start, too—to improving and expanding the transport market in the ACT by opening things up to alternative providers of demand-responsive transport services, but it falls short of the mark in terms of opening the transport market up to encourage genuine free market competition as the demands on any new provider under this proposed legislation are endless.
The opposition will be supporting the government’s bill today. We will be supporting Dr Foskey’s amendment and, of course, our own amendment. The opposition wants our strong concerns about the onerous nature of the requirements on any demand-responsive service provider under this piece of legislation to be especially noted. I hope that the government would revisit these requirements at a later date and consider making them less daunting for anyone trying to enter the demand-responsive market.
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .