Page 2874 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to do the best by its citizens will provide. I believe that this amendment goes a long way to ensuring that others will be able to be looked at in the scope of this review.
I think we should go back a bit. Mr Stanhope did mention the slight increase in fares for ACTION, and this is the case. A number of years ago, I believe fare increases were something that was under the remit of the ICRC and there was a freeze put on raising bus fares for quite some time. When that was taken out of the remit of the ICRC, it was back with government. And I guess this is part of our argument.
When the government had to argue before the ICRC for not increasing or increasing bus fares, there was considerable research, there was considerable consultation that had to go into that. What we are saying is that now that the ICRC does not have a role in this, now that this role sits within government, it should not simply be looked at from an economic angle. We really do need to look at the social impacts of things such as bus fare increases. I know that Mr Stanhope has very much embraced a triple-bottom-line approach to things.
We also would include the environmental aspects. A robust and well-run public bus system is part of the ACT’s response to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It is a climate change response as well. So I believe that the amendment that Ms Bresnan has put forward is very much worthy of support.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (3.45): We have finally heard the government’s rationale for their decision to increase bus fares by 49 per cent. The Chief Minister largely spoke about how small the increases were for all the other fare types. He spoke about the faresaver 10 and the concession fare going up by $1.25. He said that the weekly ticket would go up by $1.20 and the monthly one by $3.50. However, the student tickets are the ones with the biggest increase of $4.05. I do not think we received a proper rationale from the government as to why this charge is necessary at this time. Why is it necessary at this time?
The Chief Minister said that every other state, every other government and every other community in Australia do not have the same provision that we have here. However, I do not think every other state, every other community and every other government have changed it in the last six months—in which case, why was this not done last year, two years ago, three years ago or seven years ago? They are doing it now because of the state of the territory budget. It is because of their mismanagement and their inability to manage their expenditure. That is why tertiary students are being slugged 49 per cent.
It is all very well for the Chief Minister to say, “Oh, it is only 40c.” If you are going to and from a tertiary institution each day, using a faresaver 10 each week and doing that for, say, 40 weeks a year, with a $4 increase that is $160. That is a fair tax: $160 for a student who may be on an income of $10,000 or $15,000 from a part-time job. In fact, there would be many on less than that. A $160 tax when you are on an income of $7,000 to $10,000 is a lot of money. This government still has not said why this tax is necessary at this time.
The Chief Minister also pointed to the subsidy that ACTION receives. It is a huge subsidy. It is in the vicinity of $70 million at the moment. He said that, ideally, the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .