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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4730 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

perhaps there are grounds for upgrading Palmerston Lane. What we want, however, is for these issues to be addressed directly by this Government, and not for the Government to impose this grand proposal for a new shopping mall in Manuka that will create more problems than it solves.

The Greens are not alone in this call. There are many people in the community who do object to this proposal. The Canberra Small Business Council, the Commercial and Retail Tenants Association, the Canberra Property Owners Association and even the ACT Chamber of Commerce have come out against this proposal.

Mrs Carnell: That is not true.

MS HORODNY: They have. I have heard them.

Mrs Carnell: No, they have not. You ring them up and find out.

MS HORODNY: They said on the radio that they opposed it. The majority of people participating in the Manuka Precinct Committee have also expressed strong concerns, and the Manuka traders are split, seemingly about two against to one for, on this issue. The Government needs to take heed now, before it goes too far in committing itself to this ill-considered development proposal.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.50): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, there really are so many inaccuracies in what Ms Horodny has said that it is very hard to know where to begin. It really is quite extraordinary that, on a matter where there are really quite clear rules and guidelines in place, we should be facing so many misrepresentations about where this process goes and so many misunderstandings about it. Ms Horodny originated this motion three weeks ago, or she wanted to move it three weeks ago. I think it is quite reprehensible that she comes back now with relatively little homework done on what the situation is in this respect.

There is a litany of things I want to comment on, but only very briefly. First of all, the claim is that the Government decided only lately, or latterly, to release the expressions of interest process for public scrutiny. The decision was taken at the same time as or before the expressions of interest were called for to make those expressions of interest available to people. The decision was made by me in my office with my officers present. I said, "Everybody who expresses a desire to put forward an expression in respect of Manuka should be told that there will have to be public disclosure of their information and that they should therefore adjust what they might want to say in that, lest they put on the table anything which could be commercial-in-confidence". All five of the tenderers or expressers of interest - I am not sure what to call them - have agreed to put their proposals on the table. As Ms Horodny mentioned, they are now available at Manuka for everyone to look at.

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