Page 3490 - Week 11 - Thursday, 14 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That compared to some $580 per household in Sydney and $640 per household in Melbourne. Surprisingly, given that you would expect significant economies of scale in those major capital cities which have mass use of public transport and have the far more attractive to commuters train system, the cost of public transport per household in Canberra is, in fact, lower, despite the significant diseconomies of scale in the ACT. So that is encouraging.
The Industry Commission noted that that was based on the 1991-92 subsidy. They did acknowledge that the ACT Government is embarking on a strategy, which is to timetable, of further reducing that subsidy by some $10m. That amount - $10m off about $50m - is a 20 per cent reduction in subsidy level over three years. The Industry Commission made the brilliant observation, unsupported by any supporting argument, that that was too slow. I challenge the Industry Commission to show any jurisdiction in Australia where a public transport authority has achieved a 20 per cent reduction in costs over three years.
Madam Speaker, the Industry Commission's view of the world, that everything would be fine if we deregulated and privatised, is one that the Government rejects. I wonder why the Industry Commission went to the bother, because it is what they say about everything. It comes from a dry, economic rationalist view of the world, and the world is rather more complicated than that, although many economists are unable to grasp that. Despite those ideological blinkers, a significant finding in the report was that the household level of subsidy to public transport in Canberra, which those opposite and some commentators would always trumpet as the most wasteful in Australia, with the highest level of subsidy - a totally inefficient organisation, and Mr De Domenico nods enthusiastically - was lower than in Sydney and Melbourne, where you would expect, Madam Speaker, that there would be significant - - -
Mrs Carnell: It was, until they fixed up their system.
MR CONNOLLY: It has all been fixed up in Sydney.
Mrs Carnell: I did not say that.
MR CONNOLLY: Mrs Carnell, what a simple view of the world! What a lovely world it must be from a Liberal perspective. Madam Speaker, we have a system which, in terms of comparative efficiency, is doing quite well when compared to those of those major capital cities, and our $10m on target strategy will make it even better.
Government Service - Voluntary Separation Scheme
MR DE DOMENICO: Madam Speaker, my question without notice is to the Chief Minister. During estimates and, ironically, before the Industrial Relations Minister was about to meet with the unions, you said, "... the $17m voluntary separation scheme as spelt out in the budget stands". Following the decision of the Industrial Relations Commission, is the voluntary separation scheme still not negotiable? Does it still stand? If the answer is yes, what guidelines do you have and does the Government have as its position in negotiations with the trade unions?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .