Page 2712 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the General Manager of ACTION, and there was some suggestion that they were contradictory. They were not. I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that Mr De Domenico, who put out a press release in relation to the matter, simply got it wrong.
The figures that were being looked at were the projections in relation to patronage growth. It was anticipated that we would achieve that growth level. Hence, that is why they were recorded at that level in those projections in the forward estimates. It turned out that we did not achieve that projection, but we did achieve a 0.06 per cent increase in actual patronage levels on ACTION by the end of the financial year 1993-94. So, Madam Speaker, the recommendation made by the committee in paragraph 4.110 - that "this decline in ACTION patronage be considered as part of the Study on the Future Transport Needs of the ACT community" is, in fact, based on an inaccurate statement. When those figures are analysed and you take into account that it is a projection that is contained in the forward estimates of patronage levels, which was built on an anticipated 2 per cent growth, you will find that there was an increase in the patronage level. It was very small and less than that anticipated; nevertheless, it was an increase. In relation to that particular recommendation, I believe that that matter has been satisfactorily answered.
Madam Speaker, there is one other matter in relation to ACTION that I wish to comment on. I refer to page 41 of the Estimates Committee report and the heading "ACTION Policy". I wish to place on the record of the Assembly the response that I made in relation to a specific question. It has to do with a report by the Industry Commission in relation to possible reforms within ACTION, and comments by the Leader of the Opposition on an ABC radio program the day after the release of the Industry Commission report. This is something which I have given due consideration. I have taken the opportunity to ensure that the Government did understand the implications of the Industry Commission report. Those implications were considered in relation to the policy that this Government has adopted for public transport. At no stage did I, apparently with much swiftness, dismiss the Industry Commission report. It was after long consideration that I dismissed the Industry Commission report - not with swiftness, but after long consideration.
I was asked a question by Mr De Domenico about why I was not prepared to accept the economic model of public transport policies proposed by the Industry Commission, and I said:
Mr De Domenico, the social obligations of a public transport system are not necessarily met by such a regime as proposed by the Industry Commission. This Government, in reviewing the reforms that are occurring within ACTION, in particular, believe that we are on track through both the benchmarking study and indeed our enterprise agreements being negotiated with our employees to achieve best practice, not just best practice as identified vis-a-vis a model, say, the Sydney urban transport system, but best practice of each of the public transport systems in Australia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .