Page 762 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 26 February 2013

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

are households who have multiple journeys—the childcare drop-off, the school pick-up, other journeys during the day—that make using public transport unviable. That is why our policies say that over 70 per cent of journeys to work will still be by private motor vehicle. But there are still a significant number of commuters whose only key commute is from home to the office and back. If we can get more of those people to use alternative transport modes then everybody wins. The people who drive win because there is less congestion. The people using public transport win because they may not need to pay for the second or third car in the driveway and all the costs that come with that. The people who need parking win because there will be more parking available for them because other people are using alternative modes.

That is this government’s transport policy. It is a nuanced policy, and it is a policy that reflects contemporary practice around how to manage parking demand. We repeatedly hear from the Liberals that Canberra is a city designed for the car. Well, no, it is not. The development of the city and the metropolitan structure of the city with multiple centres is actually designed to reduce the number of long-distance commutes that people undertake. It is designed to ensure that people can move from their suburbs to their town centres where there is a broad range of employment choices, retail services and cultural facilities. The town centre concept is based on the concept developed post World War II which sought to reduce the need for multiple long-distance commutes.

What we saw in the 1950s and 1960s was a subsequent policy decision by the NCDC and others that imposed an American freeway model as the preference for transport provision in the city. But the fact is that having a distributed city centre with not just one CBD but multiple business centres means that people at least have the choice to undertake shorter journeys and to have a range of services and employment opportunities all located in multiple centres.

It is interesting that the statistics back up how people respond to that model. With the relocation of social security services to Tuggeranong in the 1980s, a very large proportion of people who work with that particular government department—Centrelink as it is now known—now live in Tuggeranong. They have chosen to live close to where they work for the convenience. The same is the case in Belconnen and other town centres, particularly Woden.

We know people make rational decisions to live close to where they work, and that reduces their need to travel long distances and increases their opportunities to undertake some of those journeys by walking, cycling or using public transport. So, no, Canberra is not designed for the car; not in its structure. The retrofitting of freeways after the event has presented challenges for the city, but the inherent metropolitan structure of the city does not mean we are a city designed for the car.

In terms of parking provision and the cost of car parking, the cost of car parking in the city is not higher than the cost of car parking in other centres around the country. (Time expired.)

MR WALL (Brindabella) (4.37): I am pleased to speak on the matter of public importance Mr Hanson has raised today, as it is an issue at the forefront of the minds of many of my constituents in Brindabella.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video