Page 1253 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 30 May 2007

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

---

They do not know. The point I am getting at is this: if ACTION is the custodial authority for our interchanges and has a responsibility to ensure that they are safe, why is there not a coordinated program and coordinated security plan between ACTION and police? Are there in place policing and security plans for each of the interchanges that are well known to both police and ACTION staff? Clearly, no. ACTION are saying, “We do not know what the police are doing there.” I find this not only peculiar, but absolutely irresponsible. There is clearly no interest by ACTION to coordinate with police to make interchanges safer places. There must be a consistent security plan or policing plan in these places. If there were, ACTION, the custodial authority, would have a better idea of what the circumstances and situations are in these interchanges.

Finally, I say this. The government—I think quite rightly—is seeking to increase patronage on our public transport system. We on our side of the chamber encourage that approach. We do not want to see obligatory movements of people out of cars into buses, but we do want to see the system made so attractive that people will think about leaving their cars at home and taking buses. How can you do that if these interchanges are not safe? There is a certain hypocrisy here, Mr Speaker. (Time expired.)

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Assembly adjourned at 6.29 pm.

---

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