25 October 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am pleased to join this discussion on the establishment of the Public Transport Development Authority.
When you consider the extensive list of failures of the previous government over the past 11 years, you would have to say that in a range of failed issues public transport was a stand out case. After many years of walking away from public transport, the public came back to the system, but the system and the government could not handle it and the whole thing came crashing down.
The member for Frankston has already referred to failures on the Frankston line, a line that we have in common. There were incredible punctuality and reliability issues on those dreadfully hot days, particularly around the time of Black Saturday.
They were extreme conditions but they played absolute havoc with the rail system. Indeed the Frankston line developed the unenviable reputation of being the worst line in the metropolitan system. Its performance was somewhere down near the 60 per cent range; it was absolutely shocking.
There has been some commentary already on this, but I want to recognise the efforts of the minister in the last 10 or 11 months in getting the system, particularly the Frankston line, back to running at an acceptable level. It is a remarkable change, and I commend the minister for achieving that.
Trains are an important part of the public transport system. In many ways they are the backbone of the system, but they are not all of it. The proposed authority will administer arrangements not only for trains but also for buses and trams in the metropolitan area, and in the regional areas it will administer both the train and bus systems.
The authority has the intent of creating a safe, punctual, reliable and clean network. It is important to dwell on that statement and exactly what is intended, to contrast it with a system that not only has not been working but which has failed the public in so many other ways.
This system will be safer. It will be one which people are happy to travel on, rather than one where at so many times of the day people feel slightly uncomfortable or look over their shoulders.
The system will be clean. It will be a public transport system that people feel comfortable on. They will be happy to sit down and enjoy the experience rather than endure it, which so often has been the case.
It will be a system that is punctual, where services arrive and depart when they are supposed to. Finally, the transport system will be reliable, one that actually runs, rather than, as I mentioned, the experience of the Frankston line where at one stage four out of five trains between 6.00 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. were cancelled.
An integral part of achieving a safe, clean, punctual and reliable environment for public transport is to have the capacity to plan the system and to be able to coordinate services. We have had a lot of discussion about coordinating services, but despite all the rhetoric it has not yet been achieved. I am sure the authority will be able to get stuck into this issue in a practical manner, an achievement which seems to have eluded the grasp of so many for so long.
Another important objective of the authority is to manage the system in a manner which is customer service oriented, not a system that is focused on whatever outcomes the government, the operators, the unions or the staff of the various enterprises want to achieve. It is about a customer‑focused system, and the customers are the very people for whom the service exists in the first place. For too long their interests have been overlooked.
Finally, the authority will become the face of public transport in Victoria. When you think about it, for a very long time we have had a confusing tangle of agencies, operators and quangos, and members of the public have had to try to work out where they need to go to get their particular issue dealt with. The authority will take up that role as well.
This bill is good public policy and good legislation; it is a bill of substance. I doubt I will have the opportunity to come back to speak in detail about the bill.
I want to make the point that this government has a very strong mandate to proceed with this legislation. There is no doubt that the state public transport found itself in towards the end of the previous government’s era became a symbol of the Brumby administration and emblematic of the failure of process and policy that was evident across so many areas of government administration.
The opposition commentary generally and some of the comment that has been wafting across the table over the past few minutes clearly shows that Labor members have learnt absolutely nothing from their defeat last November.
Their approach to this bill demonstrates clearly that they do not understand their failures and that they are not willing to embrace an alternative approach. They prefer to carp, criticise and selectively misinterpret the bill — and that is what has been going on in this debate.
I was interested that in the Age of 11 October the member for Northcote, as the opposition transport spokesperson, was reported as having said that ‘the authority would be too controlled by the government to be effective’. That has been backed up in the debate.
I thank the library staff for reminding us in their research brief that back in 2010 we had the Select Committee on Train Services. The minority Labor report indicated that having the Secretary of the Department of Transport responsible for the delivery of train services, which of course was the subject of the inquiry, was best practice.
Now, just a few short months later, we have opposition members saying, ‘Oh, no. We really didn’t mean it when we said that a bureaucratic system was the best way. What we really meant was a totally deregulated system’. The backflips are entertaining, but they certainly do not add to the public debate.
The authority will be an independent statutory body and, like any government body, it will have to act broadly in accord with government policy. That appears to be news only to opposition members. Given that they have just come out of 11 years in government, it is mind boggling, I have to say.
Public transport is part of a wider network, and it has to operate within that wider framework. Yet opposition members seem to be suggesting that the authority can operate without having those links and the appropriate governance structure to operate within the system.
We have had suggestions that it does not need to be responsible to anyone else in developing plans. Perhaps it is that view of the world which has caused us to have housing developments across the state, which are not serviced or are very poorly serviced by public transport. It has not been linked in. That is not a mistake that we want to continue making.
Another criticism relates to the procurement of rolling stock, with the suggestion that bodies should be able to go out and buy their own rolling stock. There is no commentary about how funding for that might be achieved. I certainly do not think you should expect these bodies to fund their own capital expenditure.
Perhaps the suggestion is that the authority should have a blank cheque. I think the Auditor‑General might have something to say about that.
The legislation will provide the foundation for the rebuilding of public transport in this state after years of Labor neglect and failure. It will create a safe, reliable, clean and punctual system. It is excellent legislation, and I am delighted to support it.
Legislative Assembly 25 October 2011
Printer Friendly Version...