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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4086 ..

MR MOORE (12.06): Mr Speaker, when the issue of retail space came to this Assembly, I was very keen to ensure that there would be no increase in retail space. Instead, the Government's response in dealing with the issue was to say, "We will deal with problems in terms of smaller centres in Canberra by reducing shopping hours". There was a major debate in this Assembly over shopping hours. The result of that shopping hours debate was that it gave the Government enough time to substantially increase the amount of retail space in Canberra. So, whilst I concede that the amendment moved by Mr Humphries does put a moratorium on retail space from now on, the truth is that the horse has bolted. In supporting that - and I am happy to support it - we are going to shut the gate after the horse has bolted.

Mr Speaker, the issue of community support for the expansion of retail space with regard to Manuka is particularly interesting. I have not yet come across anybody other than the Greens, who have been consistent in their position, who has been saying that what this issue is about is an expansion of retail space. They are all saying, "We want a supermarket. We do want to expand the retail space as far as supermarkets go. We just do not want this particular development". Mr Speaker, I believe that that eliminated the particular issue on which I objected to the development of Manuka in the first place. As far as I was concerned, there ought not to have been any retail space. The weight of community and business opinion is that there should be more retail space there and, what is more, the decision was made in this Assembly that there will be more retail space in Manuka.

So, the question then became: Which is the best development? The process that the Government went through in this case was incredibly extensive. Of course, there are always ways in which processes can be improved. I expect that we will look at this process and say, "How can it be improved?". But this particular process has been more extensive than any other. There was a tender put out. It allowed competitive tendering for the particular site. There was a probity officer appointed. As far as I am concerned, the whole process was particularly good. It involved the community very widely indeed. We have been through a process that has come out with a development which, in my opinion, is head and shoulders above the other proposals. I think that anybody who sat back and honestly looked at the range of proposals would have to come to the same conclusion. It seemed to me that there were people who put in their tender and thought, "This is a lay-down misere. This is for us. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink; it is all done. It is going to go our way", and they got a shock, because somebody else went to a lot of effort to come up with what can only be described, as far as I am concerned, as an excellent proposal for that particular area. What we have to weigh up is whether or not we are going to support this approach.

Some people will simply oppose all development. I find it ironic that I am here saying this, because I have been accused of this very thing on many occasions. But the reality is - I think I have demonstrated it most adequately over the last three years as chair of the Planning and Environment Committee - that we have brought down a whole range of approvals of developments. What is more, we have done it very quickly and very efficiently, to make sure that these things can proceed. What I have objected to and what I continue to object to is the development of office blocks that are not consistent with the Y plan and the decentralised town centre concept. I will come back to that.

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