Brisbane Transport Buses: Privatise or Not?

[#Metro]

That the question now be put:

Brisbane Transport Buses: Privatise or Not?

[HappyTrainGuy]

I said no. BT can be operated by the BCC but they better bloody know that its Translink running the show. Just the same as Queensland Rail has had to adapt. As too the private operators.

[#Metro]

I think it is the other way around. BT operates the BCC... 

Combines of the worst aspects of local gov't with the worst aspects of commercial operation IMHO

[bagbuffy]

BCC will never Privatised the buses, No political party would be Stupid enough to Privatise the BCC buses. It's electoral suicide!

[#Metro]

BCC will never Privatised the buses, No political party would be Stupid enough to Privatise the BCC buses. It's electoral suicide!

The question is whether you want it so or not.

[bagbuffy]

Oops, Sorry. No 

[Golliwog]

I'm fine with BCC owning them, I'm with HTG: BCC and BT need to accept that Translink is meant to be the head honcho.

[#Metro]

And how do you suggest that happen?

[Golliwog]

And how do you suggest that happen?

Emerson grows a pair?

Ultimately I see it as the kid that knows they're not meant to be doing something but want to see if they can get away with doing it anyway. By the very nature of the contract arrangement that they're part of, BCC/BT must be aware that at the end of the day they're being contracted to provide Translink services. Because they're local government and until Translink was introduced they operated their own system of bus routes though, they still want to continue doing what they always did to some extent. Hence why they keep putting forward idea's like Blue Cityglider (good) and Maroon Cityglider (not so bad if the 385 is re-routed to stay on Waterworks Rd, otherwise wasteful duplication). But when it comes to the overall network, that's Translink's call. The Minister needs to get it sorted.

[HappyTrainGuy]

And how do you suggest that happen?

Emerson grows a pair?

Ultimately I see it as the kid that knows they're not meant to be doing something but want to see if they can get away with doing it anyway. By the very nature of the contract arrangement that they're part of, BCC/BT must be aware that at the end of the day they're being contracted to provide Translink services. Because they're local government and until Translink was introduced they operated their own system of bus routes though, they still want to continue doing what they always did to some extent. Hence why they keep putting forward idea's like Blue Cityglider (good) and Maroon Cityglider (not so bad if the 385 is re-routed to stay on Waterworks Rd, otherwise wasteful duplication). But when it comes to the overall network, that's Translink's call. The Minister needs to get it sorted.

Yep. Translink outlines the network routes across all regions something of which hasn't been done. Parts of the network have had small reviews here and there but nothing collective so people in between these regions suffer lack of any PT ie northside of Brisbane joining onto the northern region (Samford, Upper Kedron, Ferny Hills, Everton Hills, Albany Creek, Eatons Hill, Brendale, Cashmere, Strathpine, Bridgeman Downs, Bald Hills, Bracken Ridge and Sandgate).

[#Metro]

I think Brisbane Transport as a division of BCC has had it's run.

1. It is clear that BCC can just ram through whatever it likes, and there is next to zero consequences. The blue cityglider had all sorts of innuendos that if the State Gov't didn't agree that it could be run outside the TL system? Remember that? Blue team were in the council and red team were in the state gov't at the time and it was a major headache. Then the bus livery is different to the entire system. And the Eleanor Schonell Bridge and private operators being frozen out from being able to use that, and then the Maroon CityGlider, and the non-co-operation with TL in the bus review, which is a major boundary crossing. This nonsense has been happening for a very long time. A private company would never ever act like this, simply because it would never ever run in an election!!

Anyone who thinks some miracle is going to happen just because TL can wave around and say 'no, that's our role' and think that's going to be respected has about a decade of consistent behaviour to show that it's just not going to happen. The main benefit is the de-politicisation of the bus company. None of the other 15 operators can hold a gun to the head of the transport minister.

2. I don't believe that there is a compelling case for the continued ownership of BT. You look at Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast they still have buses, system still runs there. Identical models of buses are used in Melbourne as well. The labour used to run Brisbane's ferries are not BCC - they're contracted.

3. There is no reason why council could not continue to pay a contribution and get more service in it's area. Ownership is not a precondition for more service, and you can see that in action with the sunshine coast council where they have free buses during holidays and pay for trials for new services - they don't own the bus operations.

4. Consideration could be given to a management buy out of BT, and employee ownership - that way BT ends up in the hands of it's employees, which I think is the best outcome.

5. Ideally the state would take over the operations, but the state has no money and further to that, there is no compelling case as to why public servants should be driving the bus when there are heaps of private bus companies that do the same.

6. A private company would have ZERO issue with running services across council boundaries and wouldn't give two hoots and holler whether logan passengers and BCC residents were using the same bus. There's no way on Earth that 555 + 111 are going to merge under BCC's bus review. No way. Again, if you look at Surfside buslines, that company has no issue running services across state borders from QLD into NSW.

[#Metro]

City Glider designed for privatisation

22 June, 2009
Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

The Gabba Ward Councillor, Helen Abrahams is increasingly concerned about the proposed City Glider Service to run along Montague Road.

Cr Jane Prentice, Chairperson for Public and Active Transport Committee, admitted that Council will explore a tender process for a private contractor to run the first mass transit service in Brisbane.

The larger, distinctly painted buses will have its own 'swipe card' for users if the Lord Mayor gets his way with negotiations with the State Government.

"Different look, designated route and separate fare structure would indicate that the new service is designed to be privatised' said Cr Abrahams

"This would be consistent with the Lord Mayor's announcement to sell our CityCats and rent them back" said Helen

"I have serious concerns about essential services for the West End peninsula being cut off from Brisbane integrated public transport system.

"I would certainly be concerned about fare increases higher and more frequent that the rest of Brisbane's bus services.


[ends}
Media Contact:  3403 2165

[somebody]

Maroon Cityglider (not so bad if the 385 is re-routed to stay on Waterworks Rd, otherwise wasteful duplication).

Translink has said this too, more or less.  I don't get it at all.  The MGLD shares the same section in common with the 385 as the 375 has always done, and the latter runs every 15 minutes weekday daytimes.  What is the big deal about the MGLD duplication?

[longboi]

Maroon Cityglider (not so bad if the 385 is re-routed to stay on Waterworks Rd, otherwise wasteful duplication).

Translink has said this too, more or less.  I don't get it at all.  The MGLD shares the same section in common with the 385 as the 375 has always done, and the latter runs every 15 minutes weekday daytimes.  What is the big deal about the MGLD duplication?

Wasn't this one of your main concerns originally?

I'm of the opinion that what was proposed fixed that corridor up nicely. In fact, I would go so far as to say the Maroon Glider would have actually come in very handy (and at BCC expense). At the moment the catchment area for the 385 cannot keep up with the combined patronage of the corridor it services (primarily Paddington and The Gap). Re-routing 385 via Waterworks Rd would have freed up capacity for those in The Gap/Ashgrove West/Red Hill (which I believe it could easily be catered for with slightly lower density than Paddington) and allowed the MGLD/375 to move the Paddington masses. Coopers Camp Rd has no need for a HF service - a secondary route supported by peak services is more than sufficient.

[SurfRail]

The state needs to take owwnership of the fleet, the depots, the refuelling infrastructure, the other physical assets lik driver facilities and anything related.  Then, everything should be tendered out in a number of contract regions which are constantly retendered on a competitive basis every 5-7 years.  This is the Perth and Adelaide model and it really works.

[Golliwog]

Maroon Cityglider (not so bad if the 385 is re-routed to stay on Waterworks Rd, otherwise wasteful duplication).

Translink has said this too, more or less.  I don't get it at all.  The MGLD shares the same section in common with the 385 as the 375 has always done, and the latter runs every 15 minutes weekday daytimes.  What is the big deal about the MGLD duplication?

As nikko said, because now you have 2 HF services, plus the 375 and everything else. Overkill.

TT: Honestly, the Minister needs to show some guts. BT want to threaten to go outside the Translink fare structure? Let them. See how popular that proves once Translink take back the buses they bought BT. Translink is not here to serve BCC's political wants and needs, it's here to provide a quality PT network to the residents of SEQ (and with the revamp, apparently all of QLD).

[somebody]

You still need the service for Coopers Camp Rd so it's not like the overkill is even avoided by relegating the 385 to Waterworks Rd.  The Waterworks Rd services are some of the most consistently full services that I have seen.  Perhaps because there's so few of them they don't reach the stats.

The state needs to take owwnership of the fleet, the depots, the refuelling infrastructure, the other physical assets lik driver facilities and anything related.  Then, everything should be tendered out in a number of contract regions which are constantly retendered on a competitive basis every 5-7 years.  This is the Perth and Adelaide model and it really works.

Yep.  Once you allow operators to provide their own depots or buses the whole thing comes undone.

[longboi]

You still need the service for Coopers Camp Rd so it's not like the overkill is even avoided by relegating the 385 to Waterworks Rd.  The Waterworks Rd services are some of the most consistently full services that I have seen.  Perhaps because there's so few of them they don't reach the stats.

Well you do if the secondary route runs at half the frequency. That's the idea, provide Waterworks Rd with one HF service instead of 3 different services. Much more legible.

[Golliwog]

Are a full 4bph all the way to the end of the 375 completely justified? (Serious question, I've never used the 375). Split it between the 375 and the Coopers Camp route. If you need a bit more then maybe 6bph, 3 to each.

RE: Depots, etc. Yes it makes it easier for the government to claim ownership, but what about the free market? By all means, let opposing private companies tender for any route to get the best deal, but they should be doing it off their own depots and fleets. Translink can help fund extra buses (like it does currently) but these should eventually be paid off by the operator or Translink should retain the right to take them back and deploy them as they see fit.

[#Metro]

Hi, please leave discussions about routes etc in another thread. This thread is on a narrow and specific topic. Thanks.

As nikko said, because now you have 2 HF services, plus the 375 and everything else. Overkill.

TT: Honestly, the Minister needs to show some guts. BT want to threaten to go outside the Translink fare structure? Let them. See how popular that proves once Translink take back the buses they bought BT. Translink is not here to serve BCC's political wants and needs, it's here to provide a quality PT network to the residents of SEQ (and with the revamp, apparently all of QLD).

Excuse me, how does the minster "show guts"? The minister has no power and the agency is a captured lapdog. BCC can and does whatever the hell it likes and has done so for the last decade. It dresses it's buses up in whatever it likes.  In 2007 it did it's own mass transit report as if it were in control of the network. And that tells you something - it's because they are in control! Then there was the Blue CityGlider which was good, but was rammed through. And if they didn't get their way, well, to hell with TL, we'll just threaten to run it outside the TL system. Then Maroon CityGlider, a service that goes against almost every planning principle in the book, bar the through routing was rammed through. Now the Lord Mayor is drawing up plans for a bus tunnel - will the Logan 555 bus service be able to use that? I wonder. A bus tunnel that is going to cost billions probably and all put on the Bank of TransLink (TM) credit card. Funny that we already have one bus tunnel in the city, we already have a train tunnel going from Roma St to Central and the Valley and we are going to get another tunnel as CRR as well.

Scott Emerson can talk until he is blue in the face, fact remains he's talking to a brick wall. Not all feedback is verbal - if someone is not co-operating, that's feedback as well - it's saying GET STUFFED!!

That's not going to change!! It doesn't matter who is up in state government, all gov'ts have had major headaches. Anyone who thinks TL is in control just because someone printed a piece of paper or even passed legislation that says so and has a title called "Minister" needs to think twice. Look at actions, not words and the real picture will reveal itself.

The fact that Scott Emerson had to palm off the review to the operator, tells you everything you need to know about who calls the shots.

[#Metro]

RE: Depots, etc. Yes it makes it easier for the government to claim ownership, but what about the free market? By all means, let opposing private companies tender for any route to get the best deal, but they should be doing it off their own depots and fleets. Translink can help fund extra buses (like it does currently) but these should eventually be paid off by the operator or Translink should retain the right to take them back and deploy them as they see fit.

I think there is a benefit from just having one bus company in the BCC area and letting competition happen at the contract stage for that area. By having everything as one unit, you can run buses from one side of the city to the other and have them layover there if need be. Where individual routes are tendered, I think there is a tendency for companies to acquire each other so you end up with one company establishing a territory nonetheless.

By the way, I think BT would be best owned by its employees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies
as this would give workers the best deal IMHO. Some very large companies such as Huawei, CH2MHILL and ARUP are EOCs, and employees receive a cut of the profits each year if the company does well.

[Golliwog]

Of course the Minister has power. Translink is no longer an agency, but an area within TMR now ever since the re-arranging. That's part of how Neil Scales is now DG of TMR rather than head of Translink.

For all BCC's threats about running outside the Translink fare system, I don't think they'd have a snowflakes chance in hell of getting that to work. They'd either be going back to a paper only system (hello dwell time blowouts) or have to fund their own version of the go card that would only work on their one bus route (unless they got Translink co-operation, which considering what BCC did to get to this scenario in the first place, is unlikely). The costs they would have to bear to follow through on their threat is quite high, not to mention the roll out time they'd need for it.

As you keep saying, Translink has the purse strings. It'd be a no-win scenario, but they could cut their funding to BT. It's not something it'd push for, but it would be an option to bring them into line. Force them to the discussion table rather than just skip over that to we're going to force you (BCC) to sell your bus fleet because we can't work with you.

To say he HAD to palm the review off to BT is a complete cop out of what happened. He didn't have to do jack. Sure it wouldn't be the best look telling the local council they're a bunch of PT numpties, and to push on with the review, but it'd be better than what he has done.

[#Metro]

Of course the Minister has power. Translink is no longer an agency, but an area within TMR now ever since the re-arranging. That's part of how Neil Scales is now DG of TMR rather than head of Translink.

Disagree. If that were the case, Maroon CityGlider would not have gone through, neither the bus livery issues and so forth and so forth. All sorts of state gov't ministers from both red team and blue team have consistently had problems with BCC. NONE of them have ever been able to stand up to it.

Anyway, Scott Emerson already said in the radio interview that plan would not fly with whole of BCC campaigning to kill it off.

For all BCC's threats about running outside the Translink fare system, I don't think they'd have a snowflakes chance in hell of getting that to work. They'd either be going back to a paper only system (hello dwell time blowouts) or have to fund their own version of the go card that would only work on their one bus route (unless they got Translink co-operation, which considering what BCC did to get to this scenario in the first place, is unlikely). The costs they would have to bear to follow through on their threat is quite high, not to mention the roll out time they'd need for it.

Surfside buslines managed to keep it's tourist passes for quite a while IMHO.

As you keep saying, Translink has the purse strings. It'd be a no-win scenario, but they could cut their funding to BT. It's not something it'd push for, but it would be an option to bring them into line. Force them to the discussion table rather than just skip over that to we're going to force you (BCC) to sell your bus fleet because we can't work with you.

No, TL is bound by contract IMHO. And the contracts auto-renew as well as someone else pointed out. How crazy is that? I do whatever I want and still be guaranteed a contract for that!

To say he HAD to palm the review off to BT is a complete cop out of what happened. He didn't have to do jack. Sure it wouldn't be the best look telling the local council they're a bunch of PT numpties, and to push on with the review, but it'd be better than what he has done.

Emerson doesn't have the back office resources to run the consultation properly. And under the previous TL structure, the board, being all business people, would be intimately acquainted with something called risk management and public relations, something non-existent in practice at TL currently.

I'm not convinced that Scott Emerson was just going to sit in a chair and watch the feedback form go from 6000 to 10, 000 to 16,000 with petitions galore, and then protests and just not bat an eyelid. That's crazy talk.

BT had been successful in slipping in a poison pill into the review simply by not participating in it so that fatal flaws (a la 411 et al) went public and shocked people. And further the BCC councillors actually facilitated the whole process - just read the comedy that is the BCC meeting minutes and Cr Dicks big cheesy photograph in the local paper with all these protestors who are actually campaigning for slower services-  a private company would NOT be able to do this and would have NO incentive to play games like this.

Yes, even IF we assume TL would pull the funding then what- BCC walks away from it's bus operations and now running PT costs $100 million more pa suddenly for the same services.

[somebody]

You still need the service for Coopers Camp Rd so it's not like the overkill is even avoided by relegating the 385 to Waterworks Rd.  The Waterworks Rd services are some of the most consistently full services that I have seen.  Perhaps because there's so few of them they don't reach the stats.

Well you do if the secondary route runs at half the frequency. That's the idea, provide Waterworks Rd with one HF service instead of 3 different services. Much more legible.

I say there is madness in the method.

Are a full 4bph all the way to the end of the 375 completely justified? (Serious question, I've never used the 375). Split it between the 375 and the Coopers Camp route. If you need a bit more then maybe 6bph, 3 to each.

4 things militate against getting good loads on the Bardon side of the 375:
- lack of a KGSBS stop
- Herschel St route
- It's a very short route
- Lack of evening services

It gets mediocre patronage.  Not terrible, but not nearly as good as the 385.

RE: Depots, etc. Yes it makes it easier for the government to claim ownership, but what about the free market? By all means, let opposing private companies tender for any route to get the best deal, but they should be doing it off their own depots and fleets. Translink can help fund extra buses (like it does currently) but these should eventually be paid off by the operator or Translink should retain the right to take them back and deploy them as they see fit.

Has this worked, anywhere in the world?  Changing operators is difficult and expensive enough.  Observers are expecting trouble in Region 1 of Sydney when Westbus gets kicked out and the state owns a number of the buses in that case.  ADL & PER show the way.

The fact remains these things are effectively a natural monopoly, and need to be regulated.

[Golliwog]

There is a difference between having the power and using it. Picking your fights. BCC was funding the gliders so as long as TL was free to redesign the network around those services I don't see that as a big issue.

Theres a difference as well between keeping an old ticketing scheme and implementing a new one.

All contracts should have a get out clause.

And whose fault is it that they don't have the resources to run a proper consultation? Were you expecting sone kind of sympathy for the government that sacked a large part of the TMR workforce? I was never saying Emerson should do nothing, he should have been calling for BT to participate from the beginning. When it hit the fan like it did he should have done what Ozbob's been doing and pointing out when they're wrong about routes being cut and used that to tell them to shut up and read the full review.

[somebody]

Just do it properly.  No half assing around with depots or buses in private ownership.

[#Metro]

I would like to know how the minister was going to compel the operator to co operate. Ripping funding is not an option, and someone who suggests must consider reality. What exactly its the purpose of continued council ownership of BTs bus operations?

[somebody]

I would like to know how the minister was going to compel the operator to co operate. Ripping funding is not an option, and someone who suggests must consider reality. What exactly its the purpose of continued council ownership of BTs bus operations?

Exactly right.

[somebody]

what about the free market?

What about it?  Read the Unsworth report from NSW if you think that is a good idea.

I'll never forget the days of Harris Park transport which refused to recognise Cityrail/STA student IDs so they could charge full fare, and had buses leaving the station 29 minutes after a 30 minute frequency train arrived from the city in some cases.

[SurfRail]

Free market and competition principles are put into play by having the most efficient and best value for money tenderer win the contract to deliver the specified services, and then go through the same assessment regime every few years to make sure the incumbent is still the best option for the State.  Not by having multiple operators with different fare rules and practices.

I would go so far to say that every bus driver on the system should be operating under the same award, so that the operators can only find and create genuine management/fleet/operational efficiencies that don't result in paying lower wages to drivers.  I can't see any conceivable reason why a Surfside, a Bus Qld or a BT driver should all be on different rates of pay.  Bring them all up to BT levels and then run from there.

[ozbob]

Yes, flog it off.  I think TransLink and Queensland Rail should form a bus company that operates feeder routes to rail stations.  Forget BCC they have shown their form.  Let BCC continue to run cr%p routes, forge a better network by taking the initiative and just move past their mediocrity.

[techblitz]

Yes, flog it off.  I think TransLink and Queensland Rail should form a bus company that operates feeder routes to rail stations.

NO THANKS

isolated case yes but something not to be ignored imo.
After witnessing passengers being turned back from a 1/2 hourly bus service at petrie station 3 times in a row.......multiple complaints to both translink and hornibrook on the situation and zilch happening.

Hornibrook simply palm the complaint off & say its not thier problem because translink is the one that has to approve the timetables.
Someone is at fault here and dont give 2 squirts about this 3.30-4pm 680 problem where 2 petrie outbound trains arrive within 10 mins of each other resulting in a sea of students and adult passengers waiting to board the 680.
Turning people away from a 15 minute bus service is marginally acceptable but NOT a 1/2 hourly service.Not on at all.

In fact this is potentially the ONLY 1/2 hourly service that i know of in the entire region which has to turn away passengers.
Please enlighten me on any others.Gold coast/logan perhaps?

anyways ive suggested starting the 682 1 hour earlier and perhaps another earlier 677 at 4.05 pm which should easily fix the situation.

Translink/hornibook have been given thier suggestions......whether or not they act on it is for another day....
And we already know that in the review translink suggested stuff all  frequency upgrades of any of the routes connecting at petrie.

[#Metro]

Yes, flog it off.  I think TransLink and Queensland Rail should form a bus company that operates feeder routes to rail stations.  Forget BCC they have shown their form.  Let BCC continue to run cr%p routes, forge a better network by taking the initiative and just move past their mediocrity.

Does the TL act apply now that it is departmental?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Yes, flog it off.  I think TransLink and Queensland Rail should form a bus company that operates feeder routes to rail stations.

NO THANKS

isolated case yes but something not to be ignored imo.
After witnessing passengers being turned back from a 1/2 hourly bus service at petrie station 3 times in a row.......multiple complaints to both translink and hornibrook on the situation and zilch happening.

Hornibrook simply palm the complaint off & say its not thier problem because translink is the one that has to approve the timetables.
Someone is at fault here and dont give 2 squirts about this 3.30-4pm 680 problem where 2 petrie outbound trains arrive within 10 mins of each other resulting in a sea of students and adult passengers waiting to board the 680.
Turning people away from a 15 minute bus service is marginally acceptable but NOT a 1/2 hourly service.Not on at all.

In fact this is potentially the ONLY 1/2 hourly service that i know of in the entire region which has to turn away passengers.
Please enlighten me on any others.Gold coast/logan perhaps?

anyways ive suggested starting the 682 1 hour earlier and perhaps another earlier 677 at 4.05 pm which should easily fix the situation.

Translink/hornibook have been given thier suggestions......whether or not they act on it is for another day....
And we already know that in the review translink suggested stuff all  frequency upgrades of any of the routes connecting at petrie.

If its the same contract as the railways the operator can not provide additional timetabled services without Translink signing off on it.

I've seen it happen to the 335 and a couple times to the 325 during arvo peak hour at Chermside (Its 20-25 mins though - the bus arrives with decent loadings and everyone from shoppers to workers try and those interchanging try to cram onto them).

[ozbob]

@techblitz  I am being a bit tongue in cheek.  The fact remains BCC is anti-rail and designs a network with competition and  minimal support for rail particularly.  The bus review was a real move to start to fix some of these issues.  Seriously, if BCC come up with a network that continues their mediocrity TransLink should act and provide buses external to BCC operations to get people to and from rail stations. 

The real answer is to remove the buses away from the political influence and deploy it properly as part of an integrated network.

There are other poor frequency fulls, Bulimba comes to mind.  Also had feedback on occasions when no shows on poor frequency have resulted in fulls.

[somebody]

Does the TL act apply now that it is departmental?

The "Transport Operations (Translink Transport Authority) Act" has been repealed.  Functions re-incoporated back into the TOPT Act 1994.

[ozbob]

Current --> http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TranstInfA94.pdf

[somebody]

I meant this act: Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994

Both are administered by TMR, with a number of others: http://www.qld.gov.au/about/how-government-works/structure-changes/assets/administrative-arrangements-order-no-4-2012.pdf

Still shows TTA, but the act has been repealed.

[ozbob]

Current --> http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TranstInfA94.pdf

Yes, sorry posted the wrong link

this is the current --> http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TranstOpPasTA94.pdf

From http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Acts_SLs/Acts_SL_T.htm

[#Metro]

Something interesting happened a few weeks before BCC grabbed control of the bus review. This is the meeting before the BCC's comedy skit in attempted network planning, the one where Cr Milton Dick dramatically rips up the blue BUZ 100 timetable into shreds in session (well you can guess who is already planning their next campaign tilt at the Lord Mayoralty!! Maybe we will see InalaGlider sometime soon)

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4398 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 5 March 2013
at 2pm



Chairman:   Further questions; Councillor DICK.

Question 4
Councillor DICK:   Thanks, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. You just said you will always stand up for Brisbane. Given the LNP State Governments plans to privatise public transport assets, will you oppose the privatisation of Brisbane Transport. Yes or no?
LORD MAYOR:   Madam Chairman, this question has been around for a long, long time. If I had—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman:   Order!

LORD MAYOR:   I had a dollar for every time I have been asked this question. It has always been the same answer, Councillor DICK, and that is I do not support the privatisation of Brisbane Transport. If I did, I would have done it when I was Transport Chairman for Brisbane, before the Labor Party came along and took that portfolio off me to install Councillor Victoria NEWTON into an additional role in Cabinet. So it would have been quite simple -

Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:   Order!

LORD MAYOR:   That's right. We won't talk about the trip to Sydney, will we?
Councillors interjecting.

Chairman:   Order! Order! Councillor WYNDHAM!

LORD MAYOR:   Madam Chairman, the answer is a simple no. I will not support privatisation of buses. We have had, of course, a very significant change in terms of the way in which the financial arrangements of buses are carried out now. We build buses. We build them proudly in a joint venture arrangement which derives value for money for the people of this city, and they are of course built down at the Australia Trade Coast here in Brisbane. I have held a consistent position that no, I do not support the privatisation of Council's bus fleet.

Councillor ABRAHAMS interjecting.

Chairman:   Councillor ABRAHAMS!

LORD MAYOR:   Well, you know, this is an interesting argument, Councillor ABRAHAMS, because for quite a considerable period of time, I have had Councillor NEWTON in this Chamber—have a look at Hansard—lecture us on how we do not own the buses anyway. So I do not quite understand the question from the Leader of the Opposition today: will I somehow be engaged in privatising Brisbane Transport, when the person here in the front row closest to me has continually lectured us that we have never owned them anyway, and how it is the State Government that owns them? It is interesting how the tide turns when the circumstances suit. I just say again: my position has always been clear in that I do not support the privatisation of Brisbane Transport.


We'll Mr Mayor, maybe its time you gave them up!!