Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

‘Go to work tax’ Public Servants rage against paid parking [WITH POLL]

By Barcham 27 June 2013 79

Paid parking int he parliamentary triangle is a bit of a hot issue for a lot of Canberrans. Particularly those who work there.

ABC News are reporting that the NCA have received 70 formal submissions from public servants who are against the idea.

Dozens of Canberra residents have slammed a decision to introduce paid parking near the Parliamentary Triangle, labelling it a “go to work tax”.

The Federal Government is introducing paid parking on national land at Acton, Barton, Parkes and Russell from July next year.

It is expected to cost carpark users about $11 per day.

While I would hate to have to pay to park my car outside my place of work, plenty of people already do exactly every day. Many of those people do not make anywhere near as much as most public servants do.

However just because others have to do it doesn’t automatically make it okay.

Also one must always remember that there are alternatives to parking at work (bikes/buses/carpooling/etc) so calling it a “go to work tax” seems a little extreme.

Anyway enough musings from a bike-riding/license-less/lives-a-walkable-distance-from-all-his-jobs_so-what-would-I-know guy like me, what do you think Rioters?

Should there be paid parking in the parliamentary triangle?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
79 Responses to
‘Go to work tax’ Public Servants rage against paid parking [WITH POLL]
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Antagonist 5:23 pm 23 Jul 13

spinact said :

Antagonist said :

…..The expectation in just about every other city in the world is that you pay for the privilege of parking close to your workplace. ….

Based on this why isn’t there pay parking in Fyshwick or Hume?

Because there are plenty of parks available at 3am when most of the ‘workers’ in those suburbs are at peak trade?

spinact 4:58 pm 23 Jul 13

fromthecapital said :

spinact said :

Antagonist said :

…..The expectation in just about every other city in the world is that you pay for the privilege of parking close to your workplace. ….

Based on this why isn’t there pay parking in Fyshwick or Hume?

You really can’t tell the difference between an industrial area and a business district?

As far as my question goes, there is no difference. the comment I was questioning was paying for “the privilege of parking close to your workplace”, not the privilege of parking close to the a business district.

Skidbladnir 4:12 pm 23 Jul 13

Barcham said :

I know a bunch of casual APS1 employees working out there who most certainly are not being overpaid, and will also be paying to park.

You sure keep some exclusive company…
These days Canberra-based Non-Ongoing APS1s are rare like the proverbial betoothed hen, only slightly less so than SES3s.

(But I’m sure their work is appreciated)

Barcham 3:26 pm 23 Jul 13

magiccar9 said :

Does everyone playing the “public servants are overpaid” card realise that there is just as much private enterprise in the triangle as there are government departments? Why are the PS the only people considered in the matter? Spare a thought for the rest of the people who work there too who earn considerably less…

Also on the subject of public servants being overpaid, I think people are forgetting that not all public servants are full time executives.

I know a bunch of casual APS1 employees working out there who most certainly are not being overpaid, and will also be paying to park.

fromthecapital 3:25 pm 23 Jul 13

magiccar9 said :

Does everyone playing the “public servants are overpaid” card realise that there is just as much private enterprise in the triangle as there are government departments? Why are the PS the only people considered in the matter? Spare a thought for the rest of the people who work there too who earn considerably less…

Not too poor to drive their own personal motor vehicles and incur the associated expenses?

magiccar9 3:16 pm 23 Jul 13

Does everyone playing the “public servants are overpaid” card realise that there is just as much private enterprise in the triangle as there are government departments? Why are the PS the only people considered in the matter? Spare a thought for the rest of the people who work there too who earn considerably less…

watto23 12:23 pm 23 Jul 13

Tembo said :

The aim behind the policy (the basis upon which it was approved) is to solve a supposed problem that tourists are having finding parking. However, there are only negligible tourist attractions/visits to Russell so the problem does not apply there. This is why paid parking at Russell should not (can not) be applied to that precinct under this policy.

That is not the goal of introducing paid parking. Its a positive side affect of introducing paid parking. The goal is to raise income for the government. Be careful of what you wish for though, because if they don’t put paid parking in Russell, watch all those that currently park across the lake and walk to civic flock to Russell, as will those in Barton, looking for a free park. Then the complaint will be there is not enough car parking.

I’m sorry, but pay parking is sadly the best solution to this. I just hope the machines will accept cards and notes.

Or based on the arguments used around here, give all public servants a $2500 payrise except those in defence and watch the whinging start then!!

The Public Service is overpaid, basically because a payrise is given every year, whereas most private companies haven’t been handing them out that much recently. Its got to the point where professionals like vets and engineers earn more in the APS as a 6 or EL1 than they can in private industry.

so people should be grateful for what they have instead of whinging about things they don’t have or want.

fromthecapital 12:15 pm 23 Jul 13

spinact said :

Antagonist said :

…..The expectation in just about every other city in the world is that you pay for the privilege of parking close to your workplace. ….

Based on this why isn’t there pay parking in Fyshwick or Hume?

You really can’t tell the difference between an industrial area and a business district?

DrKoresh 11:39 am 23 Jul 13

spinact said :

Antagonist said :

…..The expectation in just about every other city in the world is that you pay for the privilege of parking close to your workplace. ….

Based on this why isn’t there pay parking in Fyshwick or Hume?

Get a job out in one of those places then, Jeez.

spinact 11:02 am 23 Jul 13

Antagonist said :

…..The expectation in just about every other city in the world is that you pay for the privilege of parking close to your workplace. ….

Based on this why isn’t there pay parking in Fyshwick or Hume?

Antagonist 10:40 am 23 Jul 13

spinact said :

Tetranitrate said :

Hate to say it but I for one would definitely walk from Russell to Barton if it meant getting out of paying for parking. At least for the sort of fees they’re looking at. Probably not for $4-6 a day though.

And that is exactly why they’re doing the entire area and not just the Triangle.

And so they should. Public servants do not have any entitlement to free parking. The expectation in just about every other city in the world is that you pay for the privilege of parking close to your workplace. Or you make alternative travel arrangements … or find a job that suits your needs better. Suck it up, fatcats.

spinact 9:36 am 23 Jul 13

Tetranitrate said :

Hate to say it but I for one would definitely walk from Russell to Barton if it meant getting out of paying for parking. At least for the sort of fees they’re looking at. Probably not for $4-6 a day though.

And that is exactly why they’re doing the entire area and not just the Triangle.

Tetranitrate 9:10 pm 22 Jul 13

CanberraMum said :

I know I’ve missed most of the current argument, but here is my short two cents!!
I fully understand pay-parking is a legitimate concept to force drivers into using public transport – that would be great if there was decent public transport….but I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT ACCEPT the decision that paid parking will also be introduced at Russell Offices, because according to the NCA studies, if we don’t put it at Russell – then staff from the parliamentary triangle will park at Russell and then still work in Barton…WHAT A CROCK!! Many of the people working in the Parliamentary triangle who do travel by car tend to have to travel by car…for convenience, family reasons, working hours reasons(early mornings, late nights) travel during the day reasons etc….these people will get lumped with paying for their parking, cause there isn’t another option!! They will argue to the Unions and they will get a parking allowances added to their next Agreements….(cost shift)
But for the Defence Staff at Russell it will cause a problem. Defence employees at ADFA, Campbell Park, Brindabella and Fairbairn have free parking, but if you work at Russell you now have to pay an extra $2,500??? per year..hmmm, just so those other public servants form Barton might use your car-parks…how does that work….and there isn’t another option at Russell…trust me, buses just don’t go there unless you are really lucky…so defence will end up having to pay somehow…(another cost shift)

p.s – the new ASIO building has parking for all of it’s employees….or does it??

Hate to say it but I for one would definitely walk from Russell to Barton if it meant getting out of paying for parking. At least for the sort of fees they’re looking at. Probably not for $4-6 a day though.

jase! 6:48 pm 22 Jul 13

dkNigs said :

If the poor uni students at UC are going to have to pay for parking, why shouldn’t the well off public servants in the parliamentary triangle? .

got to pay for the Brumbies sponsorship somehow

bigred 6:23 pm 22 Jul 13

And after the latest move On salary sacrificed cars they will have to pay full price for the cars they will have to pay to park. Tell me it is not a class war.

dkNigs 5:46 pm 22 Jul 13

If the poor uni students at UC are going to have to pay for parking, why shouldn’t the well off public servants in the parliamentary triangle? It’s a sad world where people argue that public servants deserve free parking but university students who often make crap all are just expected to pay. At least ANU students are central in the city.

Tembo 2:39 pm 17 Jul 13

The aim behind the policy (the basis upon which it was approved) is to solve a supposed problem that tourists are having finding parking. However, there are only negligible tourist attractions/visits to Russell so the problem does not apply there. This is why paid parking at Russell should not (can not) be applied to that precinct under this policy.

Furthermore, Russell staff should not be made to pay for parking simply to contribute revenue towards solving problems that nearby locations are having with inadequate parking spaces. The Government should contain parking problems and their policies to where they apply. Charging citizens beyond the scope/mandate of the policy sounds illegal.

If that isn’t enough of a reason to ensure the annual parking burden of $2,600 is NOT applied to Russell staff, then as a minimum the Government should separate Russell from the tourist issue/policy agenda and consider the situation at Russell under its own Terms of Reference.

If the Government is truly interested in solving the supposed problem that tourists are having finding parking, then here’s a solution that I overheard someone suggesting the other day: Dedicate a small number of PAID parking spaces for tourists next to the attractions, but leave all the other spaces as free parking. Charge a premium for parking in those premium spots. The high price deters the commuters who will search for a free space and walk further. Allow genuine tourists to obtain a full/partial refund when they have their parking ticket(s) “validated” by the tourist attraction or at the Tourist Information Centre (Northbourne Ave). This idea is not new. It is not hard to implement. Movie theatres have this system for their patrons who pay for parking in a shopping centre. The tourists would get free/cheap parking close to attractions and commuters would not be slugged parking costs unnecessarily. If someone can afford to be a tourist and have a holiday at all, they can afford to pay a small price for parking at the attractions, just like we expect to pay parking when we are visiting Sydney.

Will the Government take up this simpler, cheaper solution even though it doesn’t raise millions of dollars each year in car parking revenue from working citizens? To help me decide who to vote for, I hope the parties have opposing views about this parking issue leading up to the election. The party that promises to abolish the policy will save me and thousands more staff $2,600 every year!

watto23 9:38 am 13 Jul 13

CanberraMum said :

I know I’ve missed most of the current argument, but here is my short two cents!!
I fully understand pay-parking is a legitimate concept to force drivers into using public transport – that would be great if there was decent public transport….but I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT ACCEPT the decision that paid parking will also be introduced at Russell Offices, because according to the NCA studies, if we don’t put it at Russell – then staff from the parliamentary triangle will park at Russell and then still work in Barton…WHAT A CROCK!! Many of the people working in the Parliamentary triangle who do travel by car tend to have to travel by car…for convenience, family reasons, working hours reasons(early mornings, late nights) travel during the day reasons etc….these people will get lumped with paying for their parking, cause there isn’t another option!! They will argue to the Unions and they will get a parking allowances added to their next Agreements….(cost shift)
But for the Defence Staff at Russell it will cause a problem. Defence employees at ADFA, Campbell Park, Brindabella and Fairbairn have free parking, but if you work at Russell you now have to pay an extra $2,500??? per year..hmmm, just so those other public servants form Barton might use your car-parks…how does that work….and there isn’t another option at Russell…trust me, buses just don’t go there unless you are really lucky…so defence will end up having to pay somehow…(another cost shift)

p.s – the new ASIO building has parking for all of it’s employees….or does it??

Sorry, but people already park in russell and bus/walk to the city. And Brindabella/Fairbairn are paid for by the government so that workers their are not disadvantaged vs those in Russell. I imagine that will disappear when paid parking goes in at Russell. Seriously though, free parking is not some entitlement public servants have. Public servants are paid well above the average wage and yet they still fill like they should complain, when they have a pretty damn easy life already.

So tough luck and just either pay or catch a bus. Maybe the defence shuttle could swing past civic to make up for the lack of buses.

FYI, I work in the parliamentary triangle and I’m sick of having to drive around looking for a carpark. adding pay parking will make my life easier!

CanberraMum 10:36 pm 12 Jul 13

I know I’ve missed most of the current argument, but here is my short two cents!!
I fully understand pay-parking is a legitimate concept to force drivers into using public transport – that would be great if there was decent public transport….but I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT ACCEPT the decision that paid parking will also be introduced at Russell Offices, because according to the NCA studies, if we don’t put it at Russell – then staff from the parliamentary triangle will park at Russell and then still work in Barton…WHAT A CROCK!! Many of the people working in the Parliamentary triangle who do travel by car tend to have to travel by car…for convenience, family reasons, working hours reasons(early mornings, late nights) travel during the day reasons etc….these people will get lumped with paying for their parking, cause there isn’t another option!! They will argue to the Unions and they will get a parking allowances added to their next Agreements….(cost shift)
But for the Defence Staff at Russell it will cause a problem. Defence employees at ADFA, Campbell Park, Brindabella and Fairbairn have free parking, but if you work at Russell you now have to pay an extra $2,500??? per year..hmmm, just so those other public servants form Barton might use your car-parks…how does that work….and there isn’t another option at Russell…trust me, buses just don’t go there unless you are really lucky…so defence will end up having to pay somehow…(another cost shift)

p.s – the new ASIO building has parking for all of it’s employees….or does it??

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site