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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (22 May) . . Page.. 1585 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

This is where that question of balance comes in. First, we have to make a choice. Are we going to allow Canberra to be developed in the way that is set by developers, or are we going to allow Canberra to be developed in the way that is set by planners? That is the choice that we have before us. Mr Humphries has just indicated that because of the structure of Canberra - and he explained it very clearly, with the hierarchy of town centres with regard to retail space - we do not have a free market. We have to dismiss this idea, which I heard some people put up, which says, "Let the free market dictate. If the free market dictates, people will all go off to the town centres and the others will die; and that is the way it is".

Mr Berry: You are not going to support prohibition, are you, Michael?

MR MOORE: There is an interjection from Mr Berry, "Are you going to go for prohibition?". No, Mr Berry, I never go for prohibition; but I also never go for a totally free market. I know that it is going to be very difficult for you to understand, but there is actually middle ground. It is that middle ground that we are concentrating on here - finding that balance. As I was saying, there is a whole series of other policy issues on which we should do a cost-benefit analysis and, on balance, try to find out the way that we can find most benefit for the most number of people and, at the same time, protect the rights of smaller people.

We do not expect a simplistic approach; nor do I believe that the original motion by Ms Horodny was simplistic. I think that was a very unfair accusation by the Government. However, I think it is appropriate for the Government to have to wrestle with this particular issue that Mr Humphries is talking about - developing a strategic plan. There is no doubt that the retail plan that Mr Humphries is talking about may well go some way to satisfying the Assembly that it answers some, perhaps even all, of those questions. If Mr Humphries is confident that the retail plan will satisfy the Assembly, then of course he would be willing to support this amendment and the motion, because he would be able to come back at the next sittings of the Assembly and say, "Here is the retail plan; it will satisfy the needs of the Assembly as to how much retail space will go where and when it should go there". They are the questions that he must answer. That will be a sophisticated response, Mr Humphries. If you are able to do that, then of course you would welcome this motion with the amendment.

Mr Humphries also suggested that this is the first time in the Australian Capital Territory we will ever have had that sort of approach. It may be the first time since self-government, Mr Humphries, but it certainly is not the first time in the history of Canberra, because the strategic plan of 1984 and previous plans were about ensuring the appropriate amount of retail space, combined with the appropriate amount of office space, and when and where it should be located. It is only where development has been initiated outside the control of that plan that we have begun to see the sorts of problems that we are trying to wrestle with today.

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