Page 3860 - Week 12 - Thursday, 23 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government doing to address the myriad of interlocking transport deficiencies that adversely impact on Canberra’s chances to do business and attract tourism?
MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, the issue of Canberra’s reputation is, of course, particularly important to the government and all Canberrans. It is why my government is always particularly positive about Canberra and its great achievements and attractions. It is why I constantly regret the extent to which the opposition talk down the wonderful city of Canberra. We see, of course, Canberra being repeatedly talked down by members of the opposition in relation to its transport, level of crime, economic buoyancy, and as a great place in which to do business and live. We seek to counter the negativity which you and others generate about the ACT. Of course, we want you to support Canberra as the wonderful place it is to live, work and do business—a place unequalled in Australia and, I believe, around the world.
There are a number of issues in relation to this city, as there are with all cities around the world. In the context of traffic and traffic flows, people who come to this town and talk to me marvel at things such as the ease of traffic flow and the ease of movement. One of the things about the ACT that visitors, particularly international visitors and visitors from Sydney or Melbourne, speak to you about in glowing terms is the ease of movement around this wonderfully planned city of Canberra.
There are issues with the taxi service. The ACT government does not own or run the taxi service. The ACT government has a regulatory role in relation to the taxi service and the minister responsible for that regulatory role has sought to impress upon the owners, managers and those who constitute the taxi industry in the ACT the importance of addressing some of the very frustrating aspects of the management of that business. Certainly a point will be reached when the government’s tolerance and patience will be absolutely exhausted in relation to the regulatory obligations of the taxi company. But the ACT government does not own the taxi company. This is a private sector company with private sector operators. It is not our business.
Is there a serious suggestion from the opposition that the government should perhaps buy the taxi service, that we should actually oppose the views which Mr Mulcahy has been expressing? I must say that I find it rather frightening that we have agreed in relation to the appropriateness of the government having businesses such as fleet management businesses. It is a little disturbing to me to find Mr Mulcahy and me in some sort of furious agreement over this. But I wonder what Mr Mulcahy would say about the prospect of an ACT government perhaps purchasing the taxi company? This is a market operation, this is the private sector, this is business, this is the market. Certainly governments can regulate but this is not a business we would run.
In relation to the part of the question that referred to Pialligo and Majura Valley, once again I think the Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services and his department have acted in an exemplary way in the taskforce constituted by the ACT and commonwealth governments. Indeed, this morning I was at a ministerial consultative committee meeting convened by Mr Lloyd, the minister for territories, and Mr Lloyd commended the ACT government and the Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services for the work of the taskforce on traffic, particularly its focus on Pialligo and the juncture of roads within the vicinity of the airport.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .