Page 2872 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
lowest rate of increase in fares in Australia over the last eight years, resulting in this government, this community, contributing to that social obligation to a greater degree than any other community in Australia. The 11.3 per cent is not exorbitant and is based on movements in the wage-price index through 2007 to 2009 and the forecast wage-price index for 2009-10. Put simply, to continue to provide the service that Canberrans expect and rely on from public transport, we, the government, believe a fare increase is necessary.
At the heart of Mr Coe’s motion today is the fact that included in the change in fares there is also a change in eligibility for the school bus ticket. Full-time tertiary students, university students most particularly, will no longer be eligible for these kinds of tickets but will from 1 July need to purchase a concession fare ticket, consistent with all tertiary students throughout Australia. This government took the decision that there was no justification equitably to treat university students, tertiary students, in the ACT in a different way than every other government, every other community in Australia, treats them. This is the only place in Australia where a tertiary student is regarded as a school student and not as a potential concession cardholder.
Why is that? How did we justify that? Why do we show this particular largesse here? Is it that the streets are paved with gold? Is it that we have access to funds or funding that other jurisdictions do not? Why is it that members think of justifying this position that we in this territory, that we, the ACT ratepayers, can subsidise tertiary students in this territory to a level and degree that other governments choose not to do? What is different about us? Where does this extra funding come from? Why is there this additional subsidy for this particular group?
Why distinguish between university students and other concession cardholders potentially, such as pensioners, war widows, people with a disability? Why provide this particular concession to a university student but not to a war widow? Why provide this particular subsidy to a university student and not to a pensioner? Why? I would be interested in hearing members’ perspectives on that. What is the rationale or the basis for singling out this potential group? I would genuinely be interested in members’ perceptions of why this community, this Assembly, these Canberra ratepayers, taxpayers, would subsidise this potential group over and above pensioners, war widows, people with disabilities and other people that are eligible for and receive concession status in the ACT.
Mr Corbell went into some detail in relation to some of the practical and administrative issues that ACTION, particularly drivers, face in having to shuffle between those concession periods, outside of school term, when tertiary students cannot be regarded as school students.
Mr Coe: Are you saying they are not capable of doing it?
MR STANHOPE: No, it is confusing. I said it is confusing and difficult that it is only one group: university or tertiary students. For the majority of the year, they are school students, but for a significant portion of the year they are concession cardholders. And it does cause difficulties administratively for drivers that you have one group of passengers who have a double status: for part of the year, a school student; for the rest
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .