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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 7 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 2051 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

This motion today is calling on the Government to work in the spirit of the commitments they made in that debate in 1995. They have sought expressions of interest to provide bus services in Canberra. This did not come before the Assembly. I would say that calling for expressions of interest from private providers is a significant step along the way, as Mrs Carnell put it, and it is quite unacceptable for a minority government to operate in this way.

I would like to remind members that this is a minority government. I know that it does not seem like it sometimes. The Government does not respond to Assembly or committee directions as if it were a minority government. Take, for example, the directions and requests regarding Floriade. We have moved two requests. We are being very nice about asking, but it does not seem to make any difference. Basically, the request was ignored, as was the recommendation from the committee. There is a real worry in the community about this trend in this minority Government. I will continue to raise it as a concern in debates in this place and draw it to the attention particularly of Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne. I do not believe that Mr Osborne, in particular, should be taken for granted on this issue of ACTION.

This motion is directing the Government not to pursue any further the privatisation or contracting out of fundamental public transport services unless this Assembly gives support for these measures, as these measures are very significant for the ACT community. The community has a right to be involved in the decision, as do Assembly members. I noticed that Mr Smyth responded to the media on my motion and said that 14 months is enough consultation. Mr Smyth was obviously confused about negotiations with the union and consulting with the community. Industrial negotiations with the Transport Workers Union on behalf of bus drivers is not community consultation. The industrial process and dispute are different issues from how the community will fare if bus routes are tendered out. I am unaware of anyone who actually bought Mr Smyth's line, except perhaps Mr Rugendyke. This motion is to ensure that we and the Canberra community are consulted on the vital issue of public transport. I think this Government is so removed from the community that it does not even comprehend how users could be affected.

If one looks at the record of this Government and other Liberal governments, one sees that they do not have a good record when it comes to being able to ensure that community service obligations are factored into their "small government, big private sector provider" model. They have demonstrated clearly that even describing these obligations and putting them into contracts is difficult. This, in combination with their obsession with the bottom line and reducing budget expenditure, does not augur well, particularly for the disadvantaged in our community, but also for the ecological sustainability of our region. There is a real fear that services will decrease further and that those most vulnerable in our community who are totally reliant on public transport will be further disadvantaged.

As this is a cognate debate with Mr Hargreaves's motion, I will also refer to that. The main part of his motion, of course, as well as stating the importance of public transport, is in respect of industrial processes and the necessity to continue negotiating with the union in good faith and to cease any further actions related to working with

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