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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 1752 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The increase in student and concession fares, in the order of 20 to 33 per cent, does not seem to be connected with the introduction of the zonal system and appears simply to be a way of raising more revenue from young people who have the least choice in their transport options.

The zonal system does not even meet the Government's objective, as stated in the budget papers, of making similar length trips equal in cost. People who live close to zone boundaries are particularly disadvantaged if they regularly have to cross into another zone, even though their journeys may be shorter than a trip within one zone. The treatment of Gungahlin is a major anomaly, with travel from Gungahlin to Civic regarded as a two-zone fare but Gungahlin to Belconnen is a one-zone fare.

My motion affirms the recommendation of the Estimates Committee which stated that the intended new fare structure be reassessed as a matter of priority to ensure equity for all users of ACTION, but it goes further in suggesting an alternative fare structure based on a single, time-based fare. The Greens believe that there should be a single, time-based fare across Canberra which is no higher than the current fare and with appropriate concessions. I am not suggesting that the cost of current fares, whether on one or two buses, be averaged out at something like $3, and I ask Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne to take note of that because I understand they have been told that is what we are suggesting. We are not suggesting that it be averaged out at something like $3. What we are saying is that the current fare of $2 be applied to all journeys, regardless of length.

I recognise that this would result in a short-term loss in revenue for ACTION because those people who currently catch two buses would effectively have their fare cut by half. However, I expect that over time the revenue levels will be restored as more people are attracted to using buses because of the lower fares. If we do not make buses affordable, and more affordable than cars, obviously we are not going to get very far.

I think the Assembly has to make it clear what it wants to achieve with our bus system. Do we want our buses to be mostly empty, with those few people catching buses paying high fares, or do we want our buses full, with people paying low fares? The revenue achieved may be the same, but the public benefit of having full buses far outweighs having empty buses driving around Canberra. It is interesting, Mr Speaker, how, when we hear discussion and debate about public transport and we hear talk of money, the government of the day usually says, "We are investing in roads". But, when we talk about buses, the Government says, "We are subsidising buses". It is a very interesting use of language and it just shows how government does not actually understand how putting money into public transport is indeed an investment, not just a subsidy. How on earth you can say that investment in roads is in the long-term interest compared with investment in public transport very questionable.

While this proposal does not meet the Government's objective of making similar length trips equal in cost, it has the advantage of being administratively simple and encourages the use of buses by people who drive long distances, which is good for both the local and global environment. It is also good, of course, for social justice, because when you have more people using buses you have better bus services and so those people who do not have a choice actually have a reasonable transport option in our city.

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