Page 542 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In fact, the onerous nature of the requirements on a service provider under this legislation might deter providers rather than allow them to enter the transport market. We would like to see prospective owners feel confident that they should enter the market, because that is very important for all of us. It clearly will provide a much better service for our community if we encourage competitors to at least enter the market to supplement existing services. I understand that the minister’s bill is all about supplementing existing services, not replacing them. That is an argument we might have on another day, but at this point we are prepared to accept the spirit of this bill, which seeks to allow providers to supplement existing services, not necessarily compete them out of existence. Another area of concern is the explanation for new section 93, which says:
New Section 93 requires the Minister to determine minimum fares or ways of calculating minimum fares for demand responsive services.
This seems to be inconsistent with existing fare-setting requirements for other public transport services in the ACT which are regulated by reference to the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, the ICRC. I will use the term “ICRC” from this point onwards. The minister, under current laws, must make reference to the ICRC when setting fare prices for ACTION and the taxi industry. However, in this demand-responsive transport bill, it is the minister who has the sole authority to determine minimum fare levels. I have just had a talk to the minister, or at least he was gracious enough to come and track me down, about the amendment that I would like to put here today to perhaps correct what is a concern. I understand the minister’s explanation how giving him the power to set the determinations on fares for community demand-responsive services, rather than sending that determination to the ICRC, would save his department expenditure by circumventing the ICRC.
Mr Hargreaves: Saving the operators.
MR PRATT: If you are talking about loading it down to the operators, that might be another concern.
I accept the spirit of his assurance that he would seek to determine minimum fare levels. He said to me that he would seek to determine minimum fare levels for each of the service applications. I accept that he is quite fair dinkum in trying to allow some competition but, on reflection, I still think it would be appropriate to allow the demand-responsive service applicants to have their applications determined by the ICRC. If the minister in his closing speech tells us that that is going to be an impost or a cost that is passed on to the provider, let us see how that pans out in the nature of this debate.
Mr Hargreaves: It is minimum in the bill.
MR PRATT: Okay. I have decided here, despite the late briefing that I have received, that we would still want to see this bill amended to allow this determination to be carried out by the ICRC. So I will put forward an amendment to section 93 to ensure that the minister must make reference to the ICRC when determining minimum fare levels, to keep this new legislation consistent with the requirements for other current transport arrangements in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .