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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 7 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 2059 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The union simply said no; they could not do that; there was a security risk. They said, "It is okay to accept cash money, but we couldn't sell tickets as well and accept cash money because that would represent a grave security risk for us". I am quite sure that, if you get on a bus in Cairo or Bogota or even Sarajevo, you can buy a ticket; but a pensioner cannot buy a pensioner ticket in Canberra, Mr Speaker. The proposal was rejected by the union.

Mr Speaker, there is much more to be said here about the sign-on times and casual spares. For instance, in education, if a teacher rings in sick, they have a list of people they can ring and call in at short notice. We actually have a pool of casual spares who sit waiting just in case somebody happens not to turn up.

Mr Speaker, another issue is the statutory authority. I think it was in April that Mr Santi and I met to discuss matters and he again put forward his idea that we set up a transport statutory authority. They asked for a statutory authority, and we agreed. We said, "Okay, let's have a look at it. We will put it on the table". Then they rejected their own proposal. Mr Speaker, the litany just goes on and on.

If we look at the motions, Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that what they are about is just posturing - Mr Hargreaves has so kindly announced their intention for them - to get us to 12 October so that they can take protected industrial action. Mr Speaker, we have had 14 months of negotiation. We were working towards it. It started under the former Minister. Guy Thurston has carried that through. We have had two types of consultation with the public about the network. We have had EBA discussions at the same time, Mr Speaker. It led us to the second of the two paid meetings recently, where Mr Santi told his staff that, if they reject it, the Government really has no choice. Mr Speaker, I believe that. I believe that we do have little choice but to tender it out. But, as I have said from that day, Mr Speaker, I am happy to discuss it and come to some agreement if we can. I am still waiting to hear what they would like.

It strikes me as odd, Mr Speaker, that we have these motions and neither of them talks about achieving the extra 20 per cent of services that the people of Canberra deserve. Points 1 and 2 of Mr Hargreaves's motion the Government agrees with. We note that public transport is an essential basic service. We already pay CSO and an efficiency dividend far in excess of that paid by any government in this country. Most bus companies, private or public, pick up somewhere between 45 and 55 per cent of their funding through the fare box. Ours picks up 24 per cent. The people of Canberra already pay 76 per cent. That is fine. We understand that the bottom line is not the only consideration in public transport. That is correct, because we understand that pensioners, disabled people, single-car families, those that live in outlying areas and the unemployed rely on public transport, Mr Speaker. We understand that because we fund it. We know exactly how much it costs us. We are not talking about that. What we are talking about is getting the best deal for the people of Canberra.

I agree with points 1 and 2. I do not think anybody here would dare to disagree with them. But it does not mean that we have to strike a bad deal. It does not mean that we have to wait until 12 October so that industrial action will commence, in the hope that it will force us to cave in. I recall Trevor Santi's words on a 2CN program the other day when he said, "Yes, we do have the power, and we will be using that power".

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