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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1722 ..

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services) (11.20): Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition sometimes confounds me, first of all, with the idiotic things he does and, secondly, with the idiotic things he says. To stand up and say that the Liberal Party cannot be trusted on this issue is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I submit to people such as the Greens and Mr Osborne, who are interested in this debate, that they should look very carefully at Mr Whitecross's performance. From the very basis of the motion he has put forward to the Assembly today, he is attempting to mislead people as to what the original motion was that we endorsed. He has very carefully left off the words Ms Horodny used in explanation of what her motion was about. Those words were quite explicit:

This motion is about the corporatisation, privatisation and leasing of the services and structures of ACTION. It is not about limiting the incidental services provided by interstate operators ...

In other words, Ms Horodny's motion was simply not about the service that Deane's provide; yet Mr Whitecross puts forward the original wording of Ms Horodny's motion today and says, "This is what the motion was", and tries to misrepresent it - a typical Whitecross course of action. To say that we cannot be trusted, while pretending that the Labor Party can, is a fascinating little exercise in deception.

What is this motion really about? It is clearly not about providing a better service for the travelling public, because he wants to deny those people who would use the Deane's service between Canberra and Queanbeyan the right to do so. It is not about saving any money for the ACT taxpayer. He has made it clear that he is criticising us for reducing the operating costs of ACTION. There is no concern whatsoever in this motion by Mr Whitecross to serve the interests of this community in any way. What, then, is his constituency? It is quite clear that his constituency is the officials of the TWU, who have a case to present which protects their interests - not the interests of the travelling public, not the interests of the ACT taxpayer and ratepayer, but the interests of the TWU.

In the report that was tabled yesterday, Roger Graham made it quite clear that one of the major difficulties of ACTION is the restrictive work practices. Those work practices were not put in place by a Liberal government; they were put in place during five years of Labor government. It is demonstrated now, once we really have a look at the issue, which the Labor Party never did, that one of the major constraining factors on ACTION buses running efficiently and in the interests of the community is these restrictive work practices. First of all, they mean that 25 per cent of a driver's paid time is unproductive and, consequently, that increases the operating costs of ACTION. So who are these people to say, "You cannot be trusted."? Mr Whitecross carefully did not say that his constituency in this issue is the officials of the Transport Workers Union, but he knows that that is what this is all about, absolutely and unequivocally. He criticised us for reducing the expenditure on ACTION. I remind him, Mr Speaker, that the reduction over the last five years was largely achieved during a Labor government. Almost all of the $21m cost saving to the taxpayer that has been achieved was achieved under Labor governments. Mr Connolly was very proud of the fact that during his tenure they reduced the public cost of running ACTION buses. Now it suits Mr Whitecross to repudiate that and to try to lay the blame for the reduction of the money going into ACTION on this Government.

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