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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3659 ..

MRS CROSS (continuing):

want to see Australia by train and will bypass Canberra if they cannot get here by train, meaning that Canberra will miss out on much-needed tourist dollars. Similarly, many Sydneysiders wanting a day trip with friends where they can socialise and eat and drink as they travel, as well as enjoy a day in Canberra, will no longer come to Canberra without a rail service between Sydney and Canberra.

Thirdly, having a rail service between Canberra and Sydney is far more environmentally sound than having bus services. This cannot be disputed. Trains can carry more people than buses, while still only using the one engine. This is far more environmentally sound than having a number of half-full buses riding our highways.

Whilst I understand that this was not the ACT government's decision, I am not aware of any overt effort made by the government to salvage the service. Not making a submission to the New South Wales ministerial inquiry into sustainable transport to defend the Sydney-Canberra rail route is the height of laziness and reflects the contempt in which the ACT government holds the residents, particularly the commuters, and tourist services of the ACT.

Not making a submission to the New South Wales ministerial inquiry into sustainable transport is even more contemptible when it is noted that rail services between Canberra and Sydney were ceased due to staff shortages. What kind of reason is that to close a major rail link between the nation's capital and Australia's largest city? The last time I looked, there was still unemployment in Australia, so why couldn't New South Wales rail hire a few more staff, or at least restructure the 9,733 staff they currently have, to keep the line up and running?

To reduce transportation options between Sydney and Canberra, impacting negatively on both tourism and the environment, because of staffing levels is ludicrous. What a spurious and ridiculous argument that is when it is further considered that the line is not underutilised. Surely the Chief Minister could have used his contacts in the New South Wales Labor Party, going all the way up to Premier Carr, I am sure, to try to keep the service in use. Surely the Chief Minister could have done something to keep the rail service in operation.

Given that the train was not underutilised, it would surely be beneficial to everybody to look at a more efficient way of running this service or to look at making the service more attractive to encourage increased patronage. Closing down the service and replacing it with a bus service is a waste of infrastructure as well as providing a less convenient and less popular transportation option. It is time the government stuck up for the ACT and its residents. I call upon the government to support Mrs Dunne's motion.

I will not be supporting the Chief Minister's amendment, which states that the government is in the process of preparing a submission to the New South Wales ministerial inquiry into sustainable transport. Isn't this a little too late? Is this real or has he just been galvanised into action by this motion? I also note, with great interest, that the Chief Minister has graciously decided to put his name to the whole motion by amending every paragraph, even though his first three paragraphs are seemingly identical to the first three of Mrs Dunne's substantive motion. I hate to say so, but this looks to me like some particularly petty and self-indulgent behaviour from the Chief Minister.

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