Page 926 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Essentially, the question involves an assertion or challenge that, in the reservation of a major piece of land, extending and stretching from Belconnen, through parts of Belconnen, to the city and through significant parts of the city, including the ANU, we consulted. How shocking—absolutely shocking! The government now stands condemned by the Liberal Party for daring to spend money to consult with the community about the reservation of a major area of land in the territory for public transport. “You can consult on things that are important to us, but why would you consult on public transport, for goodness sake? Why would you consult on public transport?” the Liberal Party asks. We know why the Liberal Party actually belittles the notion of consulting on public transport.
Mr Pratt: Four million.
MR STANHOPE: We know in our hearts what they think about public transport. We know how little they are prepared to support it and to expand it to ensure that we are serious and genuine in our determination to ensure a sustainable future.
Mr Pratt: You couldn’t run a chook raffle on a Saturday morning in a shopping centre.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Pratt, I warn you.
MR STANHOPE: It is simply not credible in the context of a commitment to the importance both socially and in a sustainable sense and as a commitment to climate change not to grapple with the issue of how to ensure that our public transport system is as efficient, effective and, at the end of the day, sustainable as it can be. It is a major challenge to every government. There has not been one government since self-government that could classify itself as having been satisfied with the outcomes that have been achieved in relation to attracting Canberrans to our buses.
If there has been a single issue—and I am prepared to include my government in it—that every government has worked at and, at the end of its time, has looked back at and thought that it probably did not achieve what it would have liked in relation to a policy area, I think public transport probably would lead the list of lots of governments. It is an intractably difficult issue in this town—a town which, because of its history and nature and of its initial planning and structure, is very attractive to the car and the car owner and car lover and which is a difficult environment.
As a result of our geography, as a result of our history, as a result of the demographic, and as a result of our high levels nationally of income, it is difficult to encourage Canberrans to use their public transport system even now, after enormous effort and significant investment, with a significant community service obligation, amounting to over $1 million a week. Some $1.2 million a week is the extent of the community service obligation which we invest in seeking to sustain our public transport system and $62 million is, essentially, the subsidy or the level of community service that the people of the ACT invest in ACTION buses, and despite that only eight per cent of the movements through this city are on public transport, and that is the best it has ever been.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .