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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 728 ..

fresh food markets must comprehend the land use policies for group centres in the territory plan, part B2C, commercial C. Complementing the Belconnen town centre land use policy, the Belconnen district has five group centres. That is again in territory plan part B2C. These are the Charnwood, Hawker and Kaleen group centres, the Kippax group centre at Holt and the Jamison group centre at Macquarie. The Jamison group centre is located almost directly opposite the Belconnen markets on the other side of Belconnen Way.

There should be a consistent application of land use policies. The committee came to the conclusion that the Belconnen markets and the Tuggeranong markets should have the same and consistent land use policies. Of course, the Tuggeranong markets no longer exist and, if people consider the history of both markets, they will see that one is very successful as a fresh food outlet and the other one now houses a Go-Lo supermarket, which has no fresh food in it.

The committee also concluded that the existing land use policies for both the Belconnen markets and the Jamison Centre ought to facilitate making a decision about where cut-price supermarkets might be built as the result of normal market pressures. One of the things we talked about in the committee was who should make the decision about where a supermarket ought to go. Should it be land use policy or should it be market forces? We also concluded that the ACT government should consider having more flexible land use policies to encourage the development of lively and vibrant shopping to better meet the needs of all the metropolitan catchment population. If the citizens want a cut-price store at the Jamison Centre, then such a commercial decision should be made through normal market contestability.

This inquiry presented a risk of setting a precedent in that the committee may be regarded as looking into whether specific commercial interests may be permitted to commence trading in a specific location. Members were particularly concerned that the government should not be seen to be preparing draft variations to specifically support a commercial company, such as Aldi, unless there is a proven community benefit. Direct grants of land in Kippax and Conder were made on that very basis, Mr Speaker—that community benefit would be derived from the competition. There is an existing supermarket at both localities, and the emergence of a cut-price supermarket would have had, we hope, the benefit to the community of reducing prices overall.

Mr Speaker, there is much information in this report. I urge members to read it. I will not use up the Assembly’s valuable time this morning going through each and every detail. The overall finding of the committee was that there might be a case for land use policies to include a degree of flexibility in the Belconnen area to allow for the best possible outcomes for the community. We should be particularly careful not to be hung up on the idea that a cut-price supermarket—whether it be Franklins, Jewel, Aldi or whatever you like—is a good idea in a specific locality and therefore change the law or the regulations to facilitate that.

What we need to do is have good land use policies that facilitate an environment in which commercial decisions can be taken with some certainty. If you have a look at the history of section 31 out there, one thing you can say about it is that there has been no certainty. The Assembly should be aware, though, that there is currently an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with respect to the land use of section 31. As far as

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