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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3957 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It may well be, as Ms Horodny suggested, that in due time, after the trading hours have been in operation for 18 months or something along those lines, we can genuinely assess what is happening with them. In the next Assembly may be the appropriate time to refer the issue to the committee that follows this one. It seems to me that the course taken by the committee was the rational one, the sensible one. The other criticism levelled by Ms Horodny, apart from the paragraph that I said was a quite valid criticism - and I explained the reason for it - is just a projection of their own view and their own problems onto other people. Mr Speaker, I commend the report to the Assembly.

MS HORODNY (12.20): Mr Moore is obviously feeling very defensive about this report because, instead of explaining what the other three members of the committee feel about this issue, he spent most of his time talking about my dissenting report, which was interesting because I am here to talk about my dissenting report.

Ms McRae: No; Mr Moore has every right to.

MS HORODNY: Of course he does; but it is interesting because it still sheds no light on the other report. I am dissenting because I do not believe that the committee has adequately addressed the terms of reference of this inquiry. The inquiry was initiated by the Greens in the context of the debate over the Government's trading hours. We were concerned at the time that the Government was ignoring a range of other factors affecting the viability of the local shopping centres, and we wanted the P and E Committee to examine these factors.

One issue in particular, which we have raised in the Assembly a number of times, is the issue of the current oversupply of retail space in the ACT. We put a motion on that earlier in the year, which was defeated. The terms of reference of the inquiry state quite clearly that the committee should examine and report on further retail policy measures. The committee did not do that. The terms of reference list eight specific points that the committee was to consider, as well as a general reference to consider any other related matter. I repeat: The committee did not look at further retail policy measures. Instead of examining these eight points, the other committee members chose to use the committee's inquiry mainly to resurrect the retail trading hours issue, despite the hours and days that we seemed to have spent debating this topic in the Assembly and despite the fact that the new trading hours have been in effect only since 9 September 1996. Obviously, it is not "sufficient time for the effect of the retail trading legislation to be fully observed and thus unable to be effectively reviewed by the committee at this time".

The report of the rest of the committee addresses only point (b) of the terms of reference, which is to review the Government's retail policy as outlined in Striking a Balance. It ignored the other seven points in the terms of reference. I also wanted the committee to examine the Government's recent call for expressions of interest in the redevelopment of the Manuka car park into a major supermarket complex, which will have a major impact on the retail hierarchy in South Canberra and contradicts the Government's own retail policy; but I was unable to get support within the committee on this matter. I am disappointed that the other committee members, by refusing to move from their entrenched positions over the retail trading hours issues, have undermined the committee process, which is designed to provide a more informal forum than the Assembly to debate issues of concern to the ACT community and to give members of that community the

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