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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (12 November) . . Page.. 3995 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

We have provided reduced fare options for the majority of ACTION's passengers in one way or another. A pensioner off-peak daily ticket was introduced, providing unlimited rides, between peak periods and in the evening and at weekends, for $1. This ticket has become the most popular form of ticket for the target group. The seniors love it. Student travel tickets have been introduced. At 45c a ride, they are 35 per cent cheaper than the already discounted concession ticket. Family tickets and shoppers tickets have been introduced at discounted levels to meet the travel needs of those passengers. In July this year, a $1 "city saver" off-peak fare was introduced. It covers trips between the city and Northbourne Avenue, Parkes, Barton, Parliament House, Russell and Constitution Avenue.

So, we have attacked the question of fares, and we believe that they are far more equitable than they were. Roger Graham said in his report that the current fare structure was inequitable and should be reviewed. We have done that. We also have a consultant to the Department of Urban Services at this moment who is examining a range of fare models aimed at providing fairer prices for public transport in the ACT in the future and a structure that will encourage more people to use the buses. That is what it is all about.

Mr Whitecross attacked us over school travel. About 25 per cent of students graduate or change school each year, and the demand for school services is constantly changing. It is not static. It does not stay the same. The high cost of peak-period school bus operations demands the highest level of productivity in connection with them. The use of part-time drivers will be a feature of this service in the future, to get the costs down. The school transport liaison committee, comprising members of the ACT education bodies and their community representatives, takes particular account of the special travel needs of students. We do take advice from people who understand the problem.

Services are being combined, rather than cancelled. The availability of other transport options such as route buses is considered before changes are made. In every case where school services have been rationalised, there are normal route services available to transport those children to school. (Extension of time granted) It might interest Mr Whitecross and Assembly members to know that, while there are about 14,000 trips per day on school buses, there are about 17,000 school trips on normal route services. More students travel on regular scheduled services than travel on special bus services. That is, presumably, because in many cases the parents have decided that it is the most convenient service for them. The objective on the part of ACTION and the Government, of course, is to quantify the need and to meet that need - not to maintain unwarranted services simply because we used to run them. That seems to be the implication of Mr Whitecross's motion - that, even if the need changes, if the need reduces, you still run the same number of buses. How absurd can you get?

Mr Speaker, in 1992-93, the then Labor Government proposed a budget savings objective of $10m over three years, or $3.3m a year. That objective was met by ACTION. It was a rational action on the part of Mr Connolly to force ACTION to get its operating costs down, and it worked. At the end of that time, the current Government extended ACTION's savings agreements - and they were agreements; they were not arbitrarily imposed - for a further three years, with a $12m target. Subsequently, however, that target completion date was deferred for a year. So, it did not achieve the $12m in the three years, but it still has the target of ultimately achieving the $12m.

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