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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 1881 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

In putting together a budget we have to address the need of each constituency. In the ACTION appropriation we address the needs of not only the bus users but also the entire city and the benefits of a bus service to the city. Then we have to take it in the all-up context of how we run our city.

That only approximately 5 per cent of people use buses to travel to work, I think, is unfortunate. I commend Guy Thurston and his staff for the work that they have done - and the union and the workers for their participation in this - to ensure that they have a bus company, a bus service, that they can be very proud of and that the people of Canberra might actually use. It is important that we get these facts on the table and consider them in the totality of a bus service. Bus services are not a bit here and a bit there. What we have in a bus service is a bus network that straddles the city and provides real service for those that choose to use it. What we need to do is make sure that more choose to use it.

The majority of us travel within our zone. Under the current system we all pay the same fare, whether we travel from Chisholm to Tuggeranong or whether we travel from Tuggeranong to Belconnen. That is fair. I am surprised and I am unsure what the definition of fair is that we are using here. All we are asking in this reform package is that ACTION be allowed to play the game like the other bus services around the country, that ACTION be given the opportunity to raise its revenue. We are not asking for a profit. A profit would be wonderful. There is no reason why bus services cannot make profits, and that profit can go back into providing more services, providing more routes and looking after the needs of those that need a public transport system.

It is easy for those opposite to say, "Spend more money, do not increase fares, give them everything they want", without acknowledging that the money must come from somewhere. You have to remember that 95 per cent of Canberrans choose not to use the ACTION bus service. That is a different argument; it is a planning debate argument. But you have to keep it in perspective with the schools. Seventeen and a half thousand out of the 31,000 boardings a day do not have access to direct routes and many of them currently pay two fares. Where is the access, the equity, the justice for them? (Extension of time granted)

You have to understand that all we are asking is that ACTION get up to near where it should be - that it would do better would be ideal. I believe that what Guy Thurston and the staff have done is come up with a system that will answer those needs. There has been no panic attack here. The panic attack that we are being accorded with has taken the length of the Graham report, the Booz Allen analysis, nine months of consultation and four or five months since then. That is hardly a panic attack. This is a considered approach. We have looked at the options. The figures have been done on all of the other options and they do not stack up. That is why I can say to you that the Labor Party's time-based, one-zone system means an adult fare of $3.10. Ms Tucker's system of keeping the fare structure but making it time based means another $4.3m. These things have to be on the record.

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