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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1719 ..

MR MOORE (11.09): In accordance with standing order 152, I move:

That order of the day No. 1, private members business, relating to the Legislative Assembly (Broadcasting of Proceedings) Bill 1995, be discharged from the notice paper.

Mr Speaker, as I explained in introducing the previous Bill, this just discharges the original Bill from the notice paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (11.09): Mr Speaker, I move:

That this Assembly reaffirms the motion passed on 31 May 1995:

"That the Government must receive the support of the Assembly before taking any measure towards corporatisation of ACTION" -

which has not happened yet -

"the leasing of any part of ACTION services, or giving approval to any other operators for the provision of regular scheduled public transport services within the ACT".

Mr Speaker, it has become necessary for this Assembly, I think, to reaffirm its position in relation to this matter because of the attempt by the Government to give approval to another operator for the provision of regular scheduled public transport services within the ACT - namely, approval for Deane's buses to pick up and set down passengers within the ACT. Mr Speaker, it seems to me that it is a matter on which it is essential that this Assembly take a strong stand. This Liberal Government has shown, over the past 21/2 years, that it cannot be trusted with public transport in Canberra. For 21/2 years, we have seen the Government relentlessly pursue its policy of cutting back the public transport system.

Mr Speaker, they have cut $12.7m out of public transport. They have also put their costs up by selling off the buses and forcing ACTION to lease them back, at a cost of $1m more than the debt servicing cost. Mr Speaker, that so-called initiative of the Government last year foundered only because the Taxation Office would not let them rort the tax system in order to do the lease arrangement. So, when the Taxation Office pulled the pin on that arrangement, ACTION was the happy beneficiary of a change to its arrangements, which actually improved its situation compared to what it would have been if the Government had got its way in the first place.

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