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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3238 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, another issue relates to the school transport liaison committee. The standing committee heard a wide range of evidence that this liaison committee is not working well, in terms of how the Government responds to its concerns, how its concerns are communicated to the Government, and also how the Government feeds information to the committee. What we recommended was that there be a very close look at ensuring that there were sufficient resources to operate the committee on a regular basis, with prompt follow-up of issues raised in the committee. What we were saying was that this committee needed additional resources to do its job properly.

The Minister, time and again in this place, refers to the school transport liaison committee as the body that he consults with. But, if it is not adequately resourced, then it is not a very effective consultation mechanism. That is why we made the recommendations. Again we got the same response as we got from the Government on Gungahlin, which was "Agreed". It is not agreed, because they go on again to say that they are doing everything as they have currently done it. They say that the status quo is fine. That is not an agreement with the committee's recommendations. That is saying, "We don't agree with you. The situation is normal. The situation is fine". That is not satisfactory. That is not what the committee was asking for. If the Government does not agree with the recommendation, it should say so. It should not say "Agreed". That is the point I make.

Mr Speaker, the final point I make is in relation to the cost of school bus fares, which is No. 3 in the Government's response, and it relates to my dissenting report in the committee's report. This is in relation to proposed fare structures for students. I made the point that I did not believe that it was appropriate for the committee to try to develop a new fare structure when, clearly, the information available to the Government was not adequate for it to make a proper assessment about what sort of fare structure should be in place for students using school buses.

The Government has come back - at least it has been honest this time - and has said that it does not agree with me. That is fine. The Government is entitled not to agree with me. But I would make the point, Mr Speaker, that it is an unsatisfactory response, because we received a wide range of evidence that clearly demonstrated that there were conflicting sets of data used by the Government in developing its fare structure for school bus services - conflicting sets of data, widely variable in the number of students who travel each day. I said, "Until you can get consistent data on which to make a judgment about what the bus fare structure for school students should be, you should not be putting in place a fare structure. Go back to basics".

This concern was also raised by the Independent Schools Association and other non-government schools association bodies. They raised the point that they could not, in all honesty, adequately assess the Government's proposal for fare structures because the data the Government had used in developing that fare structure was inadequate. The Government has come back and said that it does not agree with that. All I can say, Mr Speaker, is that that is a very disappointing response, because we will continue to have a problem where there is gross inequity for students who choose to use non-government schools for their education, in terms of their ability to travel to those schools on public transport.

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