Page 506 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 13 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Labor Party did not agree to, was that the transport plan should incorporate parking as well as public transport issues. But, no, heaven forbid. You cannot mention parking—parking, the great evil; parking, the destroyer of our city! How dare you suggest that for a location where we will have over the years to come many big events you should have a parking plan? God forbid!
It is quite amazing. The minister or somebody picked up their little piece of A4 paper with their parking plan on it. Yes, it showed the streets around the oval and it showed locations, but it did not tell you where the capacity was. It did not tell you what they had improved to make it work better. What it did not do was actually increase the amount of parking that there was. Of course there cannot be a park for everybody that goes to a game. That would be ludicrous. But what Mr Hanson and I were saying a couple of years ago—and I think it is what the experience has shown—is that it is reasonable to include parking when you are doing a major plan for an area. If you do not, you are denying the ability to use most effectively and most efficiently the land that would surround such an area.
There is much being said in this motion. In the actual estimates back in 2011 there was a lovely exchange between Mr Hanson and Mr Barr about the elements of parking. Right at the end I think are the important questions when Mr Hanson goes, “When people park at Manuka they often park in the street or they park on some school ovals.” “There are designated major event parking areas for Manuka,” says Mr Barr. Mr Hanson says, “That is right.” Mr Barr says, “Yes.” The chair goes, “Will they be upgraded?” Mr Barr says, “No.” Pure and simple: we are going to increase the capacity of Manuka and we are not going to upgrade the parking. It does not sound like a sensible plan to me.
No-one is saying, “Go out and build a high rise.” No-one is saying, “Clear fell a couple of parks or something and just cover them with bitumen.” We are simply saying that we know that when big events occur in places around Australia and around the world they often have mass transit systems upon which to rely. They have trains that take you to the stadium and they have trams. If anybody has ever been to the G in Melbourne you know how close you can get. But there is also parking at the G in Melbourne. If you go to the cricket ground in Sydney there is also parking. If you go to any major oval and complex there is also parking. If you go out to the Olympic Stadium in Sydney there is also parking.
It is sad that we just get so ideologically blinkered to the possibility that somebody might like to go in their car somewhere with their family. Cars can be an effective form of transport too. If you take all your mates in the one car it can be effective. If you take the whole family in the one car, it can be effective. But we have this blanket “no” from the government. In light of what happened it is very important, given this motion today, that this amendment goes down because, as always, government amendments gut motions and turn them into a little bit of self-congratulatory activity, a bit of a pat on the back there for the minister and his team.
I was at the cricket last week and it was great—absolutely fantastic. It is fantastic because of things like the Bradman stand built by previous Liberal governments. It is fantastic because of the lights. The lights are great. It would be good to relay
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video