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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2745 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

on our budget and a subsidy. This thinking needs to be turned around if we are to achieve any sense of an ecologically sustainable transport system in the ACT.

It would be far more productive for the government to develop integrated transport strategies to increase bus patronage rather than hope that exposing ACTION to more commercial pressure will make it more effective. This is where I would be quite happy to agree with Mr Kaine. It would be very good to see a proper and integrated land use and transport plan developed by this government. I think we have been hearing about it for at least five years, probably even six or seven years. It was supposed to be part of the greenhouse strategy, of course, but what have they done? Instead, they have introduced the zonal one fare structure. That needs to be abolished. It is just crazy to have our buses running around town mostly empty. Putting up bus fares just discourages people from using buses.

The government needs to focus on making public transport more attractive than car travel for most common journeys rather than treating public transport as the poor cousin to private cars that only desperate people would want to use. Increased bus use has significant public benefit that cannot be easily quantified. It reduces traffic congestion and air pollution and gives Canberrans more transport choice. These benefits must be factored into the structure and funding of our public transport service.

I understand that the government has the numbers to get this legislation through, but I want to put on the record that the Greens are not supportive of this. We do not trust the direction the government is going. The government has shown absolutely no commitment to developing any kind of vision for transport planning in the ACT. From bitter experience we know that it cannot be trusted on these issues because we have seen it already with Actew. I think even Mr Osborne was reflecting on that. I recall that it was an election promise not to sell Actew, but my, how some promises do get forgotten.

MR HARGREAVES (8.34): I believe I am able to speak to the ACTION Corporation Bill and the Road Transport (Public Passenger Services) Bill all in the one go, so I will, Mr Speaker.

Firstly, I seem to remember Mr Rugendyke saying he is not going to vote for something because somebody did not beat a path to his door to talk to him about it. I want the record to show, Mr Speaker, that I offered to speak to Mr Osborne and his office about this legislation two days ago. That offer was accepted but nothing eventuated. I might have had an opportunity to give to Mr Osborne and his office the benefit of some experience that I have had in the public service. That is somewhat unique in the chamber at the moment. Nobody else in this chamber has the 30 years experience in the public service that I have. Nobody in this chamber has been in a transit lounge as often as I have. I thought I might take the opportunity to explain it. I will tell Mr Osborne my feelings now.

I believe the letter to the editor in the Valley View was a piece of hysterical nonsense, Mr Speaker. The history of the public service of the ACT is littered with people being privatised and organisations being sold off, or just abolished and then the service is picked up by the private sector. Just to correct the issue, Mr Osborne referred to all of the disastrous things that have befallen Totalcare. This side of the house does not

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