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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4084 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

There were claims - unbelievable, I have to say - that the consultation mechanisms and opportunities for comments were inadequate. We have just used the longest process of public consultation under a preliminary assessment ever employed under the Land Act. The fact that only 51 submissions were submitted - even with the period extended from 21 to 28 days - after a year of intense debate in this matter, I think, speaks volumes about the extent of people's actual concern. Mr Speaker, I have a friend, an elderly lady who lives - - -

Mr Moore: No, you do not. Do not exaggerate.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is a startling assertion, I grant you. I have a friend - - -

Ms McRae: Three more years in the Assembly will fix that. You will not have any after the next session.

MR HUMPHRIES: I know that I do not have any friends over there. I have long since given that up, Mr Speaker. This is an elderly lady who lives in South Canberra. She came to me, quite desperate, when she saw the original proposal for the section 41 development, saying that she felt that the proposal was a dreadful imposition on Manuka and a terrible mistake for the Government to undertake. She implored me, as her friend, not to approve it. I spoke to my friend a couple of weeks ago, after she had - - -

Mr Whitecross: Or is it "former friend" now?

MR HUMPHRIES: She would have been a former friend, other than for this outcome. She had been in to look at the model. She had been to look at the plan. She discussed it with someone from the Morris group. She rang me, rather sheepishly, to say that, in her view, what she had feared was not what she saw in that model or in the details of the plans. She said that the only thing she did not like was the fact that there was going to be a McDonald's at Manuka and could I take the McDonald's out. I have to say that some of the comments have had a certain snobbishness about them on that particular point; but I will not make any further comment, lest I lose a friend I have only just regained.

Mr Speaker, I think it is important to acknowledge that retailing in any city has to change and has to evolve. Even if there is not a dramatic increase in population levels, you have to have an evolving retail landscape. You cannot always achieve those changes simply by waiting for existing opportunities within the market to become available because someone bales out of or moves away from a particular retailing venture; sometimes, if needs are there, they have to be created. Particularly in a well-regulated market like the ACT, that needs to happen. Mr Speaker, it has happened in this particular case.

I want to make one more comment about the conduct of the opponents of this development. I generally respect the right of members of the public to make their comments in the way that they see fit and I respect the views, however strongly expressed, of members of the public. I have to say that I think the behaviour of some of the opponents of the Manuka development has been particularly unsatisfactory. I think that it is time I put that on record.

Mr Berry: They disagreed with you.

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