Page 1615 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
maintenance replacement of the ACTION bus fleet. In accordance with the government’s 20-year bus replacement policy, there needed to have been between 18 and 20 buses purchased and delivered per year over those six years. In fact, the analysis indicates to me that over six years the average annual budget allocation has been for about 12 buses. This analysis includes this year’s budget allocation. For the period 2002-03 to 2006-07, the total acquisition may well have been 65 per cent of requirement; that is, we may still be 40 buses behind requirement. The question is this: over these six years, how many buses have actually been delivered?
I turn to upgrades of the existing fleet. If we want to attract motorists to leave their cars at home—and ideally we do; ideally the opposition would love to see that—we must ask where the money in this budget was for upgrading existing buses to make them cleaner, more comfortable, more convenient and therefore more attractive—to try and bring that client patronage number up and therefore remove cars from our roads. Where is the money in the budget that will address those sorts of issues?
I want to talk about bus interchanges. Again, if we are to attract motorists out of their cars—and I say again that this is an objective that we believe we should be striving for—our interchanges must be safe, they must be comfortable and they must be attractive places. There does not seem to be enough money for interchange upgrades. The $1.25 million in BP3—a one-off expenditure—for interchange services and security, while a very useful injection, may not be enough. Given the urgency to make interchanges safe, I again ask this government to appropriate and implement these measures within one month. Safety at our bus interchanges is way beyond the standards required.
I turn to the new ticketing system. In this budget, $1.950 million has been allocated for this year, and up to $6 million in 2008-09, yet the effect of this funding will not be seen until the complete rollout of the system in 2009. Let us not forget that. There is about a two-year take-up requirement to make that new system effective. It is a welcome initiative, but it will take time.
I turn to the surcharge on traffic infringements. Is this another impost on Canberrans? It is unusual to attribute a tax charge to one particular avenue. It is interesting, therefore, to note that the fire levy—another impost introduced in last year’s horror budget—is attributed not directly to fire services, as the name suggests, but to consolidated revenue.
I turn to TAMS. When looking at this year’s road funding we must keep in mind that $71.8 million of road funding allocated by the federal government was not taken up by the Stanhope government. I refer to BP3, page 235. There is $71 million there, which would provide a very important fillip to our overall road upgrade plan. But until this government moves to conform and engage in partnership with the commonwealth, that funding is not going to come. And again, we do not see a five-year road funding plan. Again, this government takes a haphazard approach to this issue.
This budget sees the following. The Tharwa Drive duplication, a project long overdue, has landed only $1 million, and this is only money to cover design. Again Tharwa Drive is kicked back to the back-burner. Is this finally the end of the massive sinkhole
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .