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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (12 November) . . Page.. 4038 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

was absolutely right this morning: We ought to focus on the reform of ACTION, rather than the past. If those opposite really supported public transport, they would get behind our reform process to secure the future for ACTION and the travelling public within the ACT.

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services) (4.06): I would like to speak briefly about Ms Horodny's amendments. Before doing so, I would like to commend Mr Hird for his comments. If I had had the opportunity to write his speech myself, it could not have been better. I thank him for his comments.

I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitecross, learnt a political lesson this morning, and if he is smart he will not forget it; that is, that if you live in a glass house you should not throw rocks, because Ms Horodny's amendments threw the rocks right back into his glass house. Mr Whitecross appears to have taken the view that what was okay under a Labor government for three to four years is somehow not okay when the same things happen under a Liberal government. When he comes in here and starts talking about degradation of the ACTION system - something that, in fact, has not occurred - he cries out for a response. When I get up and say those things, everybody says, "You are just defending yourself. Of course you are going to get up and say those things, whether they are true or not true". I think it has a greater impact - Mr Whitecross should listen carefully - when a crossbencher gets up and says to him, "You did not do any better; so who are you to throw rocks?". I think it is a salutary lesson. Mr Whitecross took great umbrage at the fact that Ms Horodny got up this morning and told him that he had nothing to crow about. It was something that needed to be said.

I agree entirely with Ms Horodny's amendments. I have no particular objection to her calling on the Government to develop a transport strategy. That is something that we are doing already because it is important to whatever we do, whether it is in terms of road transportation, cars, buses, bicycles - we had a discussion about bicycles this morning - or light rail systems and the like. Whatever we do should be done in the context of some sort of long-term strategy. Mr Moore and I were agreed on the fact that the Territory Plan, when it was finally brought down some years ago, lacked that strategic view. I think it still does. There does need to be a strategy, and we are working on that. Upgrading ACTION buses so that they become a more attractive proposition to people to ride in than driving their own cars is high on our agenda. Perhaps Mr Whitecross will learn something from this morning's experience and not criticise when he leaves himself wide open to being criticised in return.

MR OSBORNE (4.09): I rise today to talk as much about courage as about the buses. I want to make it known in this place that I, for one, am all but speechless with admiration for the stand taken by Andrew Whitecross on this issue. It is an act of sheer guts, of grim and bloody-minded determination. It is the political equivalent of going over the top without helmet, rifle or bayonet to do the full Monty in no man's land. "Why?", I hear you ask. The last paragraph of Mr Whitecross's motion reads:

... calls for immediate action by the Government to implement the Graham Report in order to address the crisis of confidence in Canberra's public transport system.

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