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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (22 May) . . Page.. 1584 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It will be a very different situation to the one that presently exists in our city, where, in a sense, unlimited expansion has been allowed to occur without awareness of the fact that the highly-planned nature of our city gives rise to special obligations to those who make investment decisions based on an expectation that the hierarchy will be maintaining its present form. That is the special obligation of government in the ACT. If we were in Sydney, Melbourne or anywhere else in Australia, we could say, "If you want to build a shop, go ahead and do it. Apart from design and siting and locational issues, what you do in terms of impact on other businesses is really your own affair". That would be an easy position to take in the ACT. We cannot take that position, because we have the problem that there is a range of hierarchy placements which have been determined by government decision, which we have some obligation to protect and defend.

I ask members to be patient; to see what the Government has to say; and, if they wish, then to return to this debate or a debate like it on another day. I have to say that, if we do return to the debate, it certainly should not be - and I am sure that it will not be - on the basis of the very simplistic proposal put forward by the ACT Greens.

MR MOORE (11.13): Mr Speaker, this question is about balance, and I am going to come back to that. First, I think it is important to point out that the Government can make either a negative response or a positive response to such motions. I believe that, by and large, the Government approach here is to say, "This is simplistic; we are sophisticated" - that is, they are sophisticated as they see it - "and therefore we can just ignore motions like this". A much more appropriate response, I believe, is to move an amendment. I think that is the appropriate thing to do. That is why I have circulated an amendment. I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to move:

After "years" add "or until such time as the Government satisfies the Assembly that it has in place a strategic plan which protects small business by identifying how much retail space is to be developed in individual locations and when that development should occur".

I will read the motion and the amendment together, because one follows the other. The motion will then read:

That this Assembly calls on the Government to enforce a moratorium on the expansion of retail space in town centres in the ACT (excluding Gungahlin) for five years or until such time as the Government satisfies the Assembly that it has in place a strategic plan which protects small business by identifying how much retail space is to be developed in individual locations and when that development should occur.

I thought the Government would welcome this amendment because it actually takes the spirit of the motion that Ms Horodny has put and then turns the responsibility fairly and squarely back on the Government to carry out what they should be doing. It puts it into a planning framework - the sort of thing that Mr Humphries has been talking about.

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