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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 881 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Your privatisation guidelines, which were kindly tabled by Mr Corbell, said that public bodies that lose money should be sold. As I think we pointed out on the day, you would sell ACTION under your guidelines. We are not about that. We want a bus service that will serve the people of Canberra. The only way to do that is to run an efficient and effective bus service. To pay them a continued $8m inefficiency dividend every year is a blatant waste of public moneys. If you read the Graham report, the curious thing is that for the CSOs we pay for we could employ a private bus company to run a free service. That is how efficient we are. But I have faith in Guy Thurston and the management of ACTION. In fact, I have a great deal of faith in the attitude that is coming out of the ACTION staff, who are very keen to provide the people of the ACT with a really good service.

As to reviews, you have to set the guidelines. The guideline is that unless ACTION can make up the $10.25m we will have to look at what we do with ACTION, simply because we cannot continue to pay ACTION an $8m inefficiency dividend every year. That is $8m that could be used, for instance, to reduce rego. It could be $8m better spent on the environment.

Mr Moore: And health.

MR SMYTH: Particularly health, particularly mental health strategy. Very well done! If you have a government that is endeavouring to live within its means and to reduce the operating loss - clearly, that is what we are elected to do and that is why the people of Canberra have faith in this Government - you need to look at those areas that are most inefficient. Unfortunately, against national benchmarks, ACTION is inefficient, but ACTION staff - and I congratulate the staff - and management are working hard together to build a better bus service. What we will see later in the year, with the introduction of the new fee structure and the new bus routes, is a much better service for the people of Canberra.

MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, my supplementary question is: If the process of the review intended to find $10m on top of the already $30m deal that was done with the Transport Workers Union to make a better service has not been completed, how can the Government say that they are conducting a fair and open review on these sorts of things if the answer is already there? How is it that this magic figure of $10.37m - not a broad figure of $10m but an exact figure of $10.37m - can appear in the budget papers?

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, as I have already said, when you have a review you have to set the guidelines and the parameters within which you do a review. If you know that that is what you need to make ACTION viable, at least to break even and to provide the service, then that is what you should review - - -

Ms Carnell: Minister, did they not get rid of $10m out of ACTION when they were in government?

MR SMYTH: They what? They got rid of $10m? There you go. Is that not astounding? Unless you know what you are aiming for, you are just featherbedding and it is not worth the effort. This is a serious effort to make ACTION the country's best bus service, and we have that potential. Currently, 5 per cent of Canberrans use the buses.

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