Page 4412 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
differences, and do so quite publicly; but at the end of the day they resolve them in a fashion which is to the advantage not only of the people working within the enterprise concerned but ultimately of all people in the ACT.
One of the things that Mr De Domenico's dry arguments and rhetoric failed to address, as did Mr Westende, is the question of social justice that applies as far as public transport systems are concerned. When you look at the type of analysis that both of them tried to put up this afternoon as justification for saying that the Government has not gone far enough, both of them fail that essential test. All they are interested in is seeing one side of the ledger - absolutely no services and, allegedly, a healthier budget position. On the other side of the ledger, what is being delivered by this Government, in cooperation with the unions, is micro-economic reform.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired, Mr Lamont.
Mr Lamont: I will take an extension, Mr De Domenico, if you would like some more. Have you had enough? Do you give in?
Mr Kaine: No. You have used up enough time.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, Mr Lamont!
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I think we have won the argument. If Mrs Carnell now wishes to mop up, that is fine.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (4.12): Madam Speaker, I was absolutely fascinated by Mr Lamont's absolute diatribe on this whole thing. Unfortunately, he forgot to read what the matter of public importance debate is about. Interestingly, it is the need for micro-economic reform in Canberra's public transport sector. We believed that the Government would have no problems whatsoever in agreeing with this stand because we have understood - - -
Mr Lamont: You want to sell it off.
MRS CARNELL: No, no; the need for micro-economic reform in Canberra's public transport system. We believed, Madam Speaker, that in putting this forward today we would end up with a very positive and directional debate on something that both sides of this house actually agree with.
Mr Lamont: Mrs Carnell, your policy has no direction. It is outwards.
MRS CARNELL: No, no; we are not talking about that. We are talking about micro-economic reform in Canberra's public transport system, something that we all support. What we support, and what I am sure that those who are sensible on your side of the house support, is producing a public transport system that has lower costs and better outputs and costs the taxpayer or the ratepayer of the ACT less. That is what micro-economic reform is about, Mr Lamont. Surprise, surprise!
I think we are all interested in looking at one of the studies that are mentioned in the MPI topic for today, and that is the ACTION bus benchmarking study. I understand that Mr Connolly was quite involved with it. I understand that it was prepared at the behest of ACTION and the Department of Urban Services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .