Page 2906 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT: I thank Mr Stevenson for his very detailed question. I can provide a very simple answer. In fact, what we have introduced has made the system equitable. In fact, the parking that was provided around this area was the only parking within the city precinct that did not have some cost recovery associated with it. The changes were introduced in consultation with the students association on Reid campus. There are concessional parking arrangements available for students which, in a national sense, place them at probably the most generous end of such parking.
You will probably understand, Mr Stevenson, that parking such as this on education campuses of this nature around Australia is generally not provided under any circumstances. The normal commercial arrangements for city parking apply to most of those campuses. I understand that that of itself is not a reason to say that we here should slavishly follow what happens in other States and other areas. I think it is reasonable to say that there was a requirement to reasonably assess the provision of such parking; and I believe that we have done so, taking into account equity, reasonableness and fairness for students, those less able to afford the very high parking charges that apply in other areas around Australia. I believe that the decision we have made in the circumstances is reasonable.
MR STEVENSON: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. When the Minister talked about equity, he did not mention the other colleges. Mr Lamont, are you saying that the reason is simply that that particular college is located in a particular environment and that there does not need to be equity with other colleges in Canberra? Also, you mentioned students but not staff, who are required to pay $25 a week on top of their other expenses.
MR LAMONT: The assessment of that car parking area also indicated that a considerable number of persons who had absolutely no relationship with the CIT were using it for their parking. On that basis we negotiated with the student body and, I believe on a reasonable basis, determined an outcome that suits the greatest need. If we were to talk about those provisions applying to staff, the next argument that I would have from you would be that the staff, say, of the Treasury just across the road should enjoy the same free parking arrangement here within the city. I am afraid that your argument, Mr Stevenson, does not stand the test of close scrutiny. I believe that we, in regrettably and reluctantly reviewing the situation as it applies at that campus, have implemented a reasonable compromise for those competing needs.
Chapman Oval - Toilet Block
MR DE DOMENICO: My question is addressed to the Deputy Chief Minister in his role as Minister for Urban Services. Minister, it has been reported that when speaking to a recent meeting of the Weston Creek Community Council you said:
I am advised that to build an aesthetically acceptable toilet block at Chapman oval would indeed cost in the order of $100,000.
Minister, what do you mean by "an aesthetically acceptable toilet block"? Secondly, how much would an ugly toilet block cost?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .