Page 4977 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEFANIAK: I was in the car; it was a bit hard, Robyn. Earlier that day I had had a discussion in relation to how ACTION could be improved. Someone was complaining to me about how often there were services provided and no-one was on them. Lo and behold, that night in Tuggeranong, I saw a bus which had no-one on it and I thought it was going home. I followed it, and it was going on an actual route.
MR SPEAKER: Well investigated.
MR STEFANIAK: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. That brought home, I think, the point made to me by that person earlier in the day. I do think that the subsidy has to be looked at and that steps have to be taken to reduce it. Certain people have suggested to me that it can be halved. With drastic action, that may be so; but I am not going to go into any details. I certainly think that further efficiencies can be made by whatever party is in government.
One thing that any government, of any political persuasion, must look at is what sort of public transport system we will have for Gungahlin. I think most members by now probably would have seen the proposals in relation to a light rail system to Gungahlin from Civic. It could go south of the lake as well. I think there is a lot of potential in that type of system for Gungahlin, when one looks at it in terms of developing that area and some of the proposals in relation to medium density living in that new part of Canberra.
That transport option should be well and truly considered by any future government, with a view to minimising the money spent on public transport, because it is significant. There is always a large subsidy. Further rationalisation - much more rationalisation than has occurred - can and must take place.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.52): Mr Speaker, as the hour gets late our thoughts tend to turn to what we could be doing if we were not in this chamber. It is interesting that Mr Stefaniak's first thought is to follow empty buses around the streets of Canberra.
The significant point to make in response to Mr Stefaniak's comment about the efficiency of ACTION obviously is that ACTION, like all public transport providers in all State capitals, requires a quite significant subsidy. The house might be interested to know that in the Chief Minister's statement that was tabled today, the communique on the Premiers conference, there was an initiative announced by the Premiers and Chief Ministers to monitor the efficiency of government trading enterprises on a comparative basis across Australia. ACTION is an ACT Government trading enterprise that will be part of that audit.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .