Page 586 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR GENTLEMAN (5.08): First of all, let me read from this clause in the bill as it is written out:
The guidelines must provide that the Minister must not give a person an authorisation for a demand-responsive service if the operation of the service will have an adverse impact on the viability of an existing regular route service.
Dr Foskey’s amendment says:
The guidelines must provide that the Minister must consider the impact (if any) of the operation of a proposed demand responsive service on the viability of existing regular route services when deciding whether to give a person an authorisation for the demand responsive service.
The government will not be supporting Dr Foskey’s amendment to this bill, for several reasons. Here in the ACT we have a public transport system that is fair and equitable for the Canberra community, with regular transport routes that are easily accessible. The clause, as it is set out now, will help to ensure that the ACTION authority remains the primary provider of public transport around Canberra.
By agreeing to Dr Foskey’s amendment, there could be a misinterpretation of the clause, allowing the chance for other competitors to undermine the public transport provisions we have in place. The current public transport system that services Canberra is continually undergoing close scrutiny to improve and extend the services as needed. Today we have seen the minister’s new plans to further improve the public transport system by investigating a new bus route to allow commuters to travel to and from workplaces, schools and major shopping centres with more ease and shorter travel times.
The bill, as it stands now, allows for a comprehensive investigation into whether a demand-responsive service is what is best for the ACT or whether the service, as it stands, is the best for the community. If there were to be a demand-responsive service provider, their systems would have to be well researched and not obstruct the service we already have in place to look after the Canberra community.
Our current public transport service provides a well-rounded availability to an access-affordable and punctual service. The ACT government has worked hard consulting with the community to provide the most effective service to allow Canberrans to travel around this wonderful city with ease.
Earlier we heard from Mr Pratt crying about what he and the opposition would do with the public transport service provider. What would they do? They would sell it. Yes, they would sell it. How do you suppose that they would do that? Let me inform you: they would most certainly take full advantage of Dr Foskey’s amendment, if it were to be agreed to today, by introducing a demand-responsive service provider on an existing regular route service.
If Mr Pratt were the minister for ACTION, he would most certainly introduce competition, as he says. He says, “There will be no negative impact on the already existing public transport provider.” There is your lead-in. Introducing private competition would lessen the services that are being provided now. This, in turn, would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .