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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4082 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, my opinion is that there are different markets for those two sorts of centres. The sort of person who particularly looks for shopping on price and to some extent on convenient parking will want to go to a centre with a large supermarket with the sorts of consistent prices that national chains tend to produce, and where, if they need something else, they can often get it in a subsidiary retail shop around that supermarket. Those people who like to go to a smaller centre and be able to greet the shopkeeper by name and say, "Hello, Fred; hello, Joan" to whoever might be behind the counter, who can get their shopping carried out to their car which will be parked close by, who might not be able to walk further than to their local centre to do their shopping and who might not want to walk any further than that, are the sorts of people who are being served by a different market. Mr Speaker, I believe that those people will still be catered for adequately under the changes in South Canberra retailing which will be experienced under this plan.

It is interesting that, although much has been made - particularly by the Canberra Small Business Council, the president of which is involved in a supermarket well outside this area - of the impact on local centres, I note that there were no objections received from surrounding local centres, including Red Hill, Narrabundah and Griffith. Indeed, no objections were received from the traders at the Kingston group centre, and there was even one letter of support received from one of the Red Hill traders.

Mrs Carnell: It was not me.

MR HUMPHRIES: I hasten to mention that it was not the Chief Minister or her business. Mr Speaker, I think the economic impact on adjoining centres is much misrepresented by the opponents of this proposal. The economic impact on Manuka traders themselves has also, I think, been greatly misrepresented in this proposal. There is the potential for some of the retailing to compete with existing traders. That is acknowledged in the preliminary assessment. The Morris group has significantly modified its initial proposal to reduce the amount of commercial space. The proposal contains a range of retail operators, aimed to complement the existing retail outlets and go some way to restoring the balance of group centre functions that has progressively been forced out of Manuka by cafes, bars and restaurants. This issue was pointed out in many of the submissions supporting the proposed development.

Without the return of group centre retail outlets to Manuka, there would be an increasing drift in expenditure out of the area. What you also have to bear in mind at the present time is that there is a significant escape of retailing out of Manuka into other centres - not necessarily local centres, but other group and town centres and even Civic - because of inadequacies of the structure of the Manuka centre. I believe that what will happen with this development will be a correction of that imbalance.

Mr Speaker, comments were made also about the construction of car parking and how that will affect businesses and about overflow car parking which will supposedly reduce the amenity of surrounding areas. I think the Morris proposal has dealt with this issue quite well. It proposes a large amount of temporary car parking. Of course, at the end of the day, it will provide a significant increase in the amount of retailing provided at the moment at Manuka. That would have to rank as close to the most significant problem to be addressed at Manuka at the present time. I appreciate that the Greens do not believe

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