Page 1941 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
further rise in waste over the coming year. This stands in contrast to the government’s original target of no waste by 2010. Of late, we have seen a tangible objective morph into an unlikely aspirational target. We have witnessed a marginal increase in the cost of kerbside collection over the past year, and the government has also committed $327,000 this year to the expansion of landfill at the Mugga Lane tip.
In another appalling display, Canberrans will be paying even more for parking their cars. I understand the cost will increase by $1.50 in the city, taking the all-day rate to $10 or more. This is an unfair slug on Canberra families. In the Treasurer’s speech on Tuesday, she said:
We are introducing some limited increases to fees and charges in this Budget. Parking fees will increase, in line with our objectives to encourage a shift to alternative modes of transport.
If that is true, why was such a hefty increase for bus tickets introduced on 1 July last year? Surely, if the government is in the business of using price levers to alter transport preferences, it would not have increased bus fares by so much as 49 per cent. I think a more sustainable measure to get people on to buses would be to make the buses run more efficiently. This would mean more services and more direct services for the same money. That would be a better service. Surely this would be a more sustainable way of getting people onto buses than driving up the price of parking.
We know there is relatively low elasticity of demand for parking, meaning that even when prices increase, the level of demand will not decrease by as much as it would if it were another product. The government know this and know that they can increase the cost of parking and people will still pay it. It is a cash grab. Tell the families in Dunlop who go to work in Woden, drop off the kids on the way and come home via the shops or picking up a child from soccer training that they should be using a bus. This government is out of touch.
I note also that the government is deferring the street tree planting program. Surely the tree removal program will continue according to need. So does this mean that as trees are removed from our urban environment they will not be replaced? Again, the government should be able to manage this situation better.
In housing, the average cost per dwelling has risen by 3.75 per cent to $10,073. The overall satisfaction of tenants with the provision of public housing has also fallen by one per cent. Furthermore, the percentage of tenants owing more than four weeks rent and with debts greater than $500 sits at 15 per cent, exceeding the 2009-10 target by five per cent. This area of government is a policy vacuum, and we all expect better.
Within the heritage portfolio, the budget has allocated funding of almost $1 million for a number of projects aimed at preserving the heritage of the ACT, including the restoration and interpretation of Robertson house at Oaks Estate, Tralee homestead and Cargill’s dairy cottage. The installation of heritage signage at various sites and improvements to the Ginninderra blacksmith workshop are also on the agenda. We should be proud of the history of Canberra. The history of Canberra, and Australia more generally, is not one of wars and revolutions. Instead, it is a history of quiet
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video