Page 2869 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
great as it would be on people who need to use buses to get to work and university at all hours throughout the week.
I think there is a question here about what is an appropriate level of concession. The unemployed used to travel almost for free in the ACT. That was a great concession for those people, although pensioners and students properly resented it at the time. The same thing applies to the free bus travel for cyclists scheme, which in my mind was a positive encouragement to bicycle commuters. I am aware, though, that bus drivers reported antagonism from other travellers who felt hard done by. In that context, pensioners and the unemployed might feel hard done by if they do not have access to school bus style fares as tertiary students on occasion do.
That is why the Greens are not prepared to accept the imputation in Mr Coe’s original motion that the change of fare structure is, ipso facto, unfair and reprehensible. This motion seeks to undo a budget initiative. It is not an attempt to appropriate funds per se, but it is suggesting that when any government decision on fees or charges is unpopular and questionable, the Assembly is likely to debate the motion, directly calling for its reversal.
If the government then for whatever reason rejected that motion, there would be undoubtedly a sharp escalation. Of course, it is all a question of degree and there are no hard and fast rules. But issues surrounding standing order 200 are relevant here, given this motion is so specific. Standing order 200 states:
An enactment, vote or resolution for the appropriation of the public money of the Territory must not be proposed in the Assembly except by a Minister.
I know that Mr Coe’s motion does not offend that standing order. I just wonder where we end up in a year or so if we keep heading down this path. However, the Greens are proposing this amendment for a more important reason. The underlying issue here is that policy should be well informed, and decisions on fares and charges need to be based on that information. That decision is supported by the estimates committee recommendation 82, which reads:
The committee recommend that the ACT Government reviews the impact of ACTION fare increases on students and low income earners and other customers who cannot afford to buy pre-paid multiple tickets.
The government’s response is not enlightening. It simply states:
ACTION’s fare price policy is monitored to ensure it is consistent with economic conditions prevailing at the time and ticketing system innovations.
While I am pleased that the fare increases are monitored in this way, this response does not address the actual question. We are dealing with one of the contradictions for public transport in this town. We want to have a more efficient and convenient bus system that meets the needs of commuters and we want an affordable, comprehensive community service transport system which meets the needs of those who are marginalised through issues of mobility, age, health and poverty.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .