Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 381 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

So far as the bus service itself is concerned, even if you look at it through the eyes of an economic rationalist - a view that those opposite would be comfortable with - they would come up with the answer that you should not do anything that would extend the running time of buses because it costs more money. So on ideological grounds the Liberals and the Labor Party should agree. We are rock solid in our defence of the environment, rock solid in our ideological position on the environment, and the Liberals, from their economic rationalist viewpoint, should be opposed to this motion too. It makes no sense on any grounds for this motion to be supported, and that is why Labor will be opposing it.

MR KAINE (11.18): I must say that this is another case where people come here and waste an hour of our time debating something when they obviously do not know what they are talking about. First of all, can somebody tell me where all these bus lanes are from which, if we opened them up outside peak hours for use by ordinary cars, all these terrible environmental consequences would flow? The only ones I know about, other than Athllon Drive, are on Adelaide Avenue and a short stretch of about 200 metres on Barry Drive. What on earth are we talking about here?

Mr Berry says that by allowing the buses to flash through those short strips of road we are reducing the environmental hazard. While those buses are flashing through those short stretches of road, hundreds of cars are blocking up two and three lanes and spewing their environmental destruction everywhere. What on earth are they talking about? If these bus lanes ran all over Canberra and there were hundreds of buses on them 24 hours a day, there might be some logic to Mr Berry's argument, and perhaps even to Ms Horodny's argument. But there is simply no substance to the argument that they have put forward in opposition to this. This motion talks about opening them up to be used by private cars in off-peak hours, when there are not any buses to speak of using them. What a lot of nonsense! We are going to waste an hour debating this, and at the end of it the troglodytes are going to vote against it. For crying out loud, where does commonsense come into the issue at all?

I hear the argument about the damage to the environment, but can anybody show me any figures that indicate that these bus lanes have contributed to increased bus usage? I will guarantee that the answer is that they cannot, because there is no such evidence. For heaven's sake, let us get real. If there were a couple of hundred people sitting in the gallery this morning listening to this, they would be wondering what on earth we were wasting our time for. I am sure that, if they came in here often, they would ask the same question. On this issue, what is the point of the debate? There is no point, except that, after we have wasted an hour, the troglodytes are going to vote no to this. They are going to vote no, not for any logical reason, not because it makes any sense, not because it achieves any great environmental advance, not because it is going to attract more people onto buses, but simply because of some predetermined, mindless notion about bus lanes. Frankly, Mr Speaker, it absolutely appals me.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .