Page 2878 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
thinking about a free bus service altogether?” We gave some consideration to that. The problem with it was—
Mr Coe: You probably should have.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Coe said, “You probably should have,” without even giving it a moment’s thought.
Mr Coe: Good consideration.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne): Order, Mr Coe!
MR HARGREAVES: At least Dr Foskey thought about it. This guy over here does it in 30 seconds. The streaker’s defence—mate, beware the streaker’s defence.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, if you could address the chair—
MR HARGREAVES: All right. Through you, Madam Assistant Speaker, he ought to beware—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Can you address the chair and not respond to interjections. Mr Coe, do not interject.
MR HARGREAVES: Through you, he ought to beware of the streaker’s defence. There has to be a contribution made to the running of the bus service. We would have to find $20 million-something a year, recurrent forever. I do not see Mr Coe saying: “Which part of a hospital would have to be burnt to the ground to actually pay for that? Which one of our schools would have to be closed to pay for that?” Do not forget that it was Mr Stefaniak and Mr Humphries that wanted to close them in the first place. Talking about Mr Humphries, you are after his job, sunshine. That is what I hear. They are yesterdays’ men. We are talking about yesterday’s men.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, will you keep relevant and address the chair.
MR HARGREAVES: Okay, I take your point. I do beg your pardon, Madam Assistant Speaker. I will address the furniture. Turning to the amendment, as I understand it, Ms Bresnan is saying she understands what the government is all about but wants to be absolutely certain that nobody is particularly detrimentally treated by this move. I think that is a reasonable position to take. What she is saying by this amendment is that we will review the impact of the fare increases on students and low income earners. We have actually reviewed the impact on low income earners. That was partly, for example, where the gold pass came from. That was an initiative that I thought about because it is for seniors, the over 75s. The concessions for people between 65 and 75 were re-examined in the context of the concessional review. The answer to the second part is, yes, it is part of a rolling process anyway within Ms Gallagher’s department to look at concessions and review them on a fairly regular basis.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .