Page 1843 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(2) calls on the ACT Government to:
(a) immediately cease all plans to implement additional parking in the Phillip precinct;
(b) meet the Canberra Liberals commitment to broader consultation and work proactively with traders in Phillip to discuss solutions to the parking issues that currently exist; and
(c) consider a diverse range of parking solutions including free parking spaces, some paid parking spaces and consideration of permit parking in the Phillip precinct.
Once again I find myself bringing a motion to this place on behalf of Canberra small business that calls on the ACT Barr Labor government to allow a common-sense approach to prevail. Once again, we see a complete disregard for the views of those at the local coalface—the family businesses that have to deal with the poor decision-making of this government.
However, adding salt to the wound in this case is the fact that traders in the Phillip business precinct found out about the decision via the media, despite being led to believe that their views would not only be considered but valued, and that they would be consulted with extensively. In an email to the Chief Minister in May this year, one trader said:
The consultation process that was started by you in September last year was to look at all the issues relating to parking in the Phillip Business District area south of Hindmarsh Drive. We were also told in March that we would be given a report on the finding for further discussion before any decisions were made. This is obviously not the case and the interests of Traders and Employees of Phillip is not important any more.
When the Barr Labor government indicated that pay parking could be introduced in the Phillip commercial precinct, it was in response to an overarching problem across Canberra: workers in the town centres seeking out free alternatives for all-day parking spaces. What the government have proposed in this instance is simply a lazy and flawed policy.
There is no doubt that traders and their customers and staff will be adversely affected by this decision. The impact on some of them of having to pay for parking will be the difference between staying in business or not, or keeping their vocational training options alive or having to walk away from them.
I would like to take this opportunity to again give a voice to those most affected by reading from some correspondence that I and the opposition have received from both longstanding businesses in this area and employees. I refer to a larger employer who, despite their size, will still feel the longstanding impact of this decision. I will read from a letter that the opposition has received from a director at Lennock Motors. The letter says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video