Page 1848 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Wall’s motion also refers to the green spaces within the precinct. As my amendment notes, I have undertaken to continue consulting with traders in the area on municipal services matters. I am further advised that TAMS officers have met with the president of the Phillip Business Community to discuss his proposals to beautify the area, and I look forward to having further conversations about how we might partner with local traders to do this.
The government will continue to discuss options for improvement of the grassed areas and the general amenity in the precinct’s courts with traders. Both the government and the local traders have an obligation to make sure that the amenity in Phillip is improved. In these discussions we will look at a range of measures that might be implemented by owners of the commercial buildings and the government to improve the appearance and appeal of the area.
I would like to thank the Phillip Business Community, including the many traders that I have also met with, and that Minister Bourke met with in his walk-around with small business owners just last week, for their engagement throughout this process. I can assure the Assembly that the ACT government will continue to consult with Phillip traders to ensure an outcome that is balanced and beneficial for all.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (3.57): I thank Mr Wall for bringing on this motion. Jumping straight to the point, I understand Mr Wall essentially wants the government to pause plans to expand paid parking in Phillip, to reconsider and to consult further with traders. As the minister has just outlined, that is what she is going to do. So I think we got to a reasonably good point, at least for the time being today.
That approach is reflected in the amendment the minister has put forward. It says that the Phillip precinct is an important hub for business in the ACT, and that is certainly true. It commits the government to working with the traders and other community stakeholders to develop a balanced and fair approach to parking in Phillip. That seems like a sensible approach to me, and I would be happy to support the amendment Ms Fitzharris has moved.
I mostly agree with the sentiments expressed in Mr Wall’s motion, although I do think he has gone a little over the top on some of it, but that is par for the course on Wednesdays in the Assembly. That is why I will be supporting the amendment.
One idea that Mr Wall may find interesting is that introducing paid parking produces revenue for the government, of course, and some jurisdictions have hypothecated the revenue from paid parking and reinvested in the local area to fund things like improved amenity or better transport services that allay the need for parking in the first place. Localising revenue from paid parking is one way to use the additional funds but it is also a good way to increase support for paid parking zones.
I would like to see the government discuss these kinds of options with the Phillip community. It is an area that could benefit from amenity improvements, and paid parking revenue could support that as one potential outcome. There are certainly many positive stories from other jurisdictions where localising revenue from paid parking has had good outcomes for the local community and has also supported the introduction of paid parking, which is a good outcome overall for the city.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video