Page 584 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I know that I was approached by a group of people who do a regular trip—there are about eight of them and they regularly go from the airport to Parliament House—and who go in a number of cabs. It is frustrating for them. They would take one vehicle if it was available to them.
This legislation will make it easier for the current bus service operator, which is basically a charter bus service that Deane’s runs between the airport and Civic. I am a bit concerned and I was concerned—I am not 100 per cent sure that they are operating properly under law—but this legislation will fix that. If my fears are groundless, that is fine. But if my fears are real, this will fix that. I commend this legislation to the Assembly. It is a good step, a further step forward. As I said, I foreshadow that we will not be supporting the amendments being proposed in the detail stage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 18.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.01): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 614].
I would have to be deaf as well as blind to think that the government was going to be supporting this simple amendment, which would allow for more flexibility in the guidelines for giving authorisations for demand-responsive services. At present, the bill stipulates that the guidelines may not allow the minister to approve any proposal for services that may have an adverse impact on the viability of an exiting regular route service.
While I commend the essence of this clause, which is, I believe, to protect the viability of our ACTION bus service—a viability that I also want to continue—I feel that the need for us to establish the most efficient and effective service possible is of higher importance. I believe that it can and should be done without undermining the essential service provided by ACTION and without diminishing the work opportunities for ACTION staff. Thus my amendment allows the minister to consider any adverse impacts.
You will note that it is still up to the minister to decide. He may decide, in any particular instance, whether the operator’s proposal offers a better deal for Canberra’s public transport users than the existing regular route service. For example, an operator—and it could even be a government-run operator—may decide to run a service which goes where an existing flexibus evening service runs. The minister may decide that it is more efficient to operate a smaller, more regular service along the same route as the flexibus and hence attract more users. This is, of course, not the only instance where a smaller operation could service an area more effectively than a large existing ACTION service
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .