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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3033 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

criticised some Labor Party policies. Of course, Mr Berry, being a good party member, sought to defend those policies. One of those related to some not terribly popular units that it was proposed be built. Threats were also being made to close the Kippax library. It is still there, Mr Berry, and I think you will find in February 1998 that that library is still there booming along and open. Back in May 1994 the boot was on the other foot. The people thought that Mr Berry's Government were going to close the Kippax library. Talk about swings and roundabouts, Mr Berry! We have a big advantage now in assessing where we go in the future with ACTION. We have the ticketing system, which is proving to be a useful source of information. That will greatly assist this Government and any future governments in addressing where ACTION services are best targeted and how best they can serve the needs of our community.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (12.11): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this motion. In essence, this motion is a very simple motion - not, I would have thought, a particularly controversial motion - and one that the Government, if we are to believe all their protestations of innocence, ought to be quite happy to support. This motion notes some of the proposals which are in ACTION's document, but the bottom line is that it "calls on the Government to review this proposal and ensure that services to Kippax are not cut from the abovementioned suburbs and access to public transport for the aged such as residents of Collingrove Court is not reduced". This is a highly uncontroversial motion. This is a motion which says that the Government should think again and that it should not cut services. That is really all it says. That should not be a controversial proposal. It should not be a proposal which troubles Mr Moore. It should not be a proposal which troubles Mr Osborne. All it is saying is that we here in the Assembly do not think these services ought to be cut.

Mr De Domenico: They should, because if we do not cut services to Kippax we might have to cut them in Tuggeranong.

MR WHITECROSS: Mr De Domenico says, "If we do not cut the services in Kippax, we might have to cut some more services in Tuggeranong". I do not think even Mr Osborne is going to fall for that threat, Mr De Domenico. As Mr Osborne knows better than most, they have already been cutting services in Tuggeranong. Threatening to cut more is not likely to endear Mr De Domenico to anybody, particularly his own voters.

Despite the fact that this motion is a very uncontroversial motion, a motion which should offend nobody and should not offend a Minister committed to a good quality ACTION bus service, the Minister still felt moved to move an amendment to say that we should ensure that services to Kippax "are not out of proportion with services to other group centres". There would not be a person in this place who does not realise that they are just weasel words that Mr De Domenico will wave in our face in three months' or six months' time when he says, "You agreed to let me cut the services". If we do not want to be part of a motion which says that we agree that Mr De Domenico can cut services, we have to reject that motion out of hand. They are just weasel words designed by Mr De Domenico to try to trick the Assembly into giving our endorsement to a cut in services. The fact is that the original motion is a strong motion. It says that there is a proposal to cut services and that the Government should review the proposal and not cut services.

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