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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4091 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

but not always. It is not a black-and-white science. It is extremely difficult to know what it is that drives shoppers away from some places and takes them into others. Much better heads than mine have grappled with this problem. I do not think there is a straightforward answer. That is why I am expressing grave concerns. (Extension of time granted)

We must put on record that our support was full of praise for the way that the proponent has answered the issues that have been raised and solved the problems. I will point out some of the other things he has done that are good. But we are in no way going into it with shouts of glee about how it will affect the other centres. We are very reluctant on that score because we know that, collectively, we are not helping the other centres by doing this. However, as Ms Tucker pointed out, our survey work did show that there was a level of support and, universally, what we have found is that everybody wants a bigger supermarket. So, once you accept that fact, you have to deal with the consequences of it. The consequences of it are that we have to make a very difficult decision which then affects the other shopping centres.

In conclusion, I think the developer has demonstrated a clear interest in the future of Manuka; a clear capacity to respond to the interests of Manuka; a clear interest in what the residents are saying; some intelligent solutions to difficult problems; some capacity to realign, to change, to reduce, to take into account what people have said. It is not in the proponent's realm actually to save the other shopping centres. That comes back to us as an Assembly. It comes back to the Government in the way that it deals with decisions. It comes back to all of us, collectively, to be acutely aware that this is what is, in fact, likely to happen, and not to shirk the difficulty of that and the complexity of how that is going to affect southern Canberra.

The Labor Party will be giving support to the Manuka proposal. The Labor Party will support the notion of developing some sort of plan or having a better look at these bigger issues. The Labor Party is very mindful of the fact that doing so comes at a price. It may be a very big price to pay, which we are not happy about. But we see that there is an overwhelming case for a supermarket. Once you accept that, the logical consequences flow. The proposal for 60 units, with 5,000 square metres or so for other shops, for the supermarket, for the underground parking, for the realignment of traffic, and for the improvements to Palmerston Lane, is something that we believe will greatly enhance Manuka, will greatly enhance the amenity for the people who use that centre, and hopefully in time not diminish too much the very important and much used shopping centres at Red Hill, Deakin, Griffith and Narrabundah.

MR OSBORNE (12.29): Mr Speaker, I do not intend to speak for long on this issue, because I am sure that there is more than enough gas in the tanks of other members. When the members run out, I am confident that community representatives, vested interests on both sides, and the odd political opportunist - without mentioning any names - will ensure that it does not go gently into the night, but rages in the light of our evening television bulletins. No-one could say that the process of getting approval for development in the ACT is easy. Despite what some people would have us believe, Canberra is not the Gold Coast. The checks that we have in the existing planning approval process ensure that it never will be.

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