Page 672 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am pleased that we are going to look at how efficient the network is. I notice that Mr Hargreaves’s motion is very close to what Mrs Dunne had originally moved. Imitation is the sincerest form of praise, so it is good to see that it is imitated. I would be very concerned if in paragraph 1 (b) in Mr Hargreaves’s amendment, “incorporating comparative analysis of other bus transport operators in Australian jurisdictions”, is used in some way to justify or dumb down the system even further, because we know that we will compare very unfavourably in regard to some issues. From Hornsby to Cronulla in Sydney is about the same distance as from the top of Amaroo to the bottom of Banks. Sydney has managed to cram six million people into that area; we have 300,000. So, yes, there are inefficiencies because of the specific layout of the city that will come into effect.
Mr Gentleman is the chair of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, and I certainly hope that it is the intention of the committee, when it looks at this, to take into account some of these factors—that the very wide plan and the structure of the city which have been cemented in place over the last 40 or 50 years actually militate against public transport if you have got the timetable wrong. From all the people I have talked to about it, it would appear that the peaks seem to be working well, and that is a reasonable thing, but it is an indisputable fact that students and concessions have declined under the 06 network—this from a party that claims to be in favour of education and students and, of course, of supporting those less well off.
So there are a number of problems here. I commend Mrs Dunne for bringing the motion forward. It is a very important issue. It is an issue that people are talking about out there in the community. It is an issue that needs to be looked at seriously, and it does raise the question, when the Chief Minister said he looks forward to getting the results, as to why this sort of inquiry was not done before they changed the network. Why wasn’t this done beforehand? Similarly, on consultation with volunteers: why weren’t volunteers consulted? If you had got consultation right and used the government’s own consultation protocol you would have had this information before you changed the network.
I have seen something today that I have never seen before. In the newsletter sent home to parents from the Marist College in Pearce there was a warning that certain buses were full and could not be relied upon and that certain route buses were also full and could not be relied upon. It is quite astounding when a school in this city sends home a warning to parents that they cannot rely upon or trust the bus network as provided by this government.
So it is a timely motion; Mrs Dunne is to be commended for bringing it on. I congratulate Mr Hargreaves for having the good sense and the common sense to say, “Okay, let’s get this right.” The best way is to listen to the community, and perhaps if the government had followed their own consultation process before they had done this they might have got it right then. But we have a really good opportunity here, and we take the Chief Minister at his word that they will look at the private providers interstate as well. I believe that a bit of competition is a good thing in bus services. We know that for years Deane’s over the border have been keen to provide competition and extra service, which would hopefully be to the benefit of the provision of bus services in the ACT and to the benefit of the consumers. That being said, I will sit down and say well done to Mrs Dunne for bringing this motion on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .