Page 669 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: These are issues and that is why the government is supporting this motion and this inquiry. There is a whole range of issues—and I will raise these just by way of example—with which the government is grappling in the context of a community conversation around public transport and around ACTION, a mass transport carrier, around which the community need to be aware so that we have an informed debate, an informed inquiry. We need some context around the issues that are relevant to a debate or a discussion around ACTION, and that is that under the old system—
Mr Mulcahy: Fifty-seven people on my kid’s school bus—57 and it seats 30.
MR STANHOPE: Well, that is it. Mr Mulcahy, what the government is thinking in the context of the feedback that we are receiving is that we had 70 per cent excess capacity between peaks under the old system and we sought to address that, and it has not worked to our satisfaction, and indeed not to the satisfaction of the commuting public.
But let us acknowledge the issue that we are seeking to address. Mr Mulcahy says, “You’ve gone too far—57 children are on my child’s school bus.” At one level, that is a great achievement—that we are now seeing full buses rather than buses at 30 per cent capacity. In the context of this debate, it does need to be understood—and every member of the Canberra community, of course, has a stake in this—that there is a question around the appropriate level of community service obligation payment. At the moment it is a million dollars a week; we are supplementing the ACTION budget by $1 million a week—$50 million a year.
We sought to deal with some of those issues in relation to efficiencies, acknowledging the community service obligation, acknowledging the fundamental importance of public transport to a fair, egalitarian society, but, of course, looking for efficiencies—always looking for efficiencies. That is what we sought last year; we were looking for efficiencies. We will continue to look for efficiencies whilst maintaining our commitment to a reasonable level of community service obligation but providing a service that meets the needs of those that rely particularly on public transport, that meets the needs of our sustainable transport policy and aspiration, but which is efficient.
I am looking forward to this particular inquiry and the interstate comparisons and the benchmarking which are now part and parcel of this motion. I think it will be very useful and it —
Mr Mulcahy: Are you going to look at the private providers?
MR STANHOPE: I want to see the private providers, yes, and I am very keen to see how the Liberal Party will respond when the report is tabled. (Time expired.)
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (5.34): It is fine at last to hear the Chief Minister say that they are willing to look at the private providers interstate and the sort of services that they provide, because the very important part of this equation if we are going to get the ACTION bus services right so that we make up for the failings of the 06 service,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .