Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2362 ..
Mr Corbell
: You are opposed to compulsory HQSD.MRS DUNNE
: No, I am not. Not enough is being done in this territory to address the way that we build our houses to improve them. I will say it again: we can beat our chest about HQSD, but HQSD is only a start and nothing substantive will come out until we actually come up with a very strong policy on better house design that is appealing to people. HQSD ain't appealing to people; that is why it is being rejected and that is why there is such resistance to it in the community. Think again, do it better, do it smarter.On public transport: there are some initiatives which are to be applauded, but they are only a part of the picture and there is a lot more to be done. If we are going to put all these together-improve our water efficiency, improve our energy efficiency, improve the efficiency of our transport and cut down on our greenhouse emissions-there is a long way to go and this government is really light years behind what other people are doing. I do commend the government for at last coming up with some policies in relation to demand responsive public transport and I will do all that I can to support it and ensure that we do have proper demand responsive public transport in the years to come.
When we talk about public transport, this government loves to say that the most important thing that we can do about encouraging people to use public transport is to have pay parking. Pay parking was supposed to be introduced in Belconnen and supposed to be introduced in Tuggeranong in this financial year but, as with many things, the policy has been so ill-thought out that it is late. The policy is one that goes to show that it is not really about encouraging people to use public transport; it is about revenue raising.
What is the model that they have chosen? It is the model that we have everywhere else in ACT run car parks. It works like this: you go into a car park and say to yourself, "How long will I be here? Probably two hours, but I might be held up, so I had better pay for 21/2 hours."You pay for 21/2 hours and you only use two, so you pay more than you need, but if you actually pay for two and you are there for 21/2 hours a parking inspector comes along and fines you $65 for overstaying. It is merely revenue raising. Almost everywhere in the private sector where you go into a car park you pay for what you get. You go in, you get your ticket, you leave, you put your money in the bin, and you pay for the amount of time that you have used.
Mr Stanhope
: What was it under the Liberal government?MRS DUNNE
: It was wrong then and it is wrong now.Mr Stanhope
: If it is revenue raising under the Labor government, what was it under the Liberal government?Mr Stefaniak
: We did not have pay parking in Belconnen. You introduced it.MRS DUNNE
: You introduced pay parking. The system in government car parks was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .