Page 1851 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Many of the businesses who employ young apprentices have told me there is no way they will be able to afford to pay the parking to go work. One young apprentice with four children said he struggles to survive as he is on an apprentice wage and that 10 per cent of his take-home pay would be spent on parking if this change is brought in.
This is nothing short of a cash grab response to a problem which could be solved in another way, by perhaps even inspecting the time limits that are there already, which could work. The government has not bothered to consult. To say, “We have consulted” is a nonsense because, if they had consulted, 200 or 300 employees would not have come out the other night to a rally. This does not happen very often in Canberra. People do not, on the whole, come out to rallies. But they are very angry and they believe the government is arrogantly imposing this cost on small businesses and hardworking Canberrans.
We are committed to not rolling out this increase in paid parking and we will work with the local businesses to find a suitable solution. It really should stop.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (4.07): Just to begin by touching off on Mr Rattenbury’s observation of the notice paper, yes that is correct. It was supposed to read “immediately cease all plans to implement additional paid parking in the Phillip precinct”. I do not know if that was a transcription error from the copy we submitted in the chamber yesterday or if it was a typo on my part coming from my office. Nonetheless, Mr Rattenbury has spotted it and given us the opportunity to correct that on the record.
It is good to hear, though, today that some common sense—and I say “some common sense”—is prevailing insofar as additional consultation is going to occur between the government and the stakeholders in the Phillip business community. All I can say is that I hope that the consultation is more in line with the definition outlined in the ACT government’s MOU with the unions than the typical style of consultation that we see from this government, which is: “We’ve made our mind up.” They go out to the community and tell them what they are doing, not taking into consideration any of the response from those on the ground.
We must of course, though, remember and understand how this issue came to pass and why it has needed to come here to the Assembly before some sort of compromise was able to be achieved. That came off the back of the success of those in the Phillip business community banding together and actually starting to lobby government and put a common voice forward on what needs to happen in that precinct to address their needs.
Mr Barr has been there to launch his party’s campaign at the shops. A number of members opposite have been there as part of a community cabinet meeting. They have been there and visited the community on a number of occasions but they have taken the lazy option, which is simply to install pay parking across the precinct as a bandaid approach to fixing the parking problem that exists.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video