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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 731 ..

approach is applied to developments that are being proposed. I know my colleague, Mr Hargreaves, had some problems in relation to what had applied down at the Hyperdome and how the markets had been badly affected by the development there.

There are some geographical differences between Tuggeranong and Belconnen. The Belconnen markets are a unique and distinct entity. They are quite a way away from the town centre, so it is a pretty good walk. It would take you 10 or 15 minutes. To do it in 10 minutes you would have to be walking pretty quickly. They are about a kilometre or more away, so there is a big difference: the markets at Tuggeranong were 50 to 100 metres behind the Hyperdome. I am well aware that developments and the building and construction work sent quite a few businesses to the wall there.

I can recall concerns expressed by my old mate Pat Feneley from Platform 3 who was very concerned about it but managed to survive, although it was touch and go for a while. Other businesses there were not quite as fortunate. However, that is a bit different. The recommendation is a very sensible one. We do need a consistent approach to proposed developments. I do not think that Canberra’s suburbs are so different from each other that a consistent and fair approach cannot be applied to developments, so I think that is a sensible recommendation.

Recommendation 4, similarly, recommends that the government does not give any approvals “until there is publicly transparent evidence available of: the complementary nature of such redevelopments between all of the Group Centres in the Belconnen Precinct”, and again the “the retention of individual competitiveness for each of the shopping centres”. I know that is a difficult equation but it is something Canberrans expect. Canberrans are fundamentally very fair people and we would want to see that occur.

Of course, the report mentions the “balance of the competitive position between each of the five Group Centres in the Belconnen Precinct, including the Belconnen Town Centre, the Jamison Centre and the Belconnen Markets”. In the course of the committee inquiry, there were a few misnomers: Kippax was treated as though it was a lot geographically closer to Belconnen than it really is. The committee has fixed that one. It is really quite distinct: it is outside the five-kilometre radius so it really is in a different position to the location indicated in some submissions.

All in all, I appreciate the chance to be part of this inquiry. It is a very important one, as is proper planning, having sensible regulation, ensuring that people do have choice and that there is competition, that the market can apply and that we continue to have good quality developments and good quality choices for the consumer in Canberra. At the end of the day, that is terribly important. It is also important that the government takes into account, and does not disregard, the clear wishes of a lot of people in our community. Quite clearly, this issue is of concern to quite a few shoppers who would like to see an Aldi-type market at the markets. There are many issues there that the government should consider and I commend the report to the government.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Dunne) adjourned to the next sitting.

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